From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 1 00:04:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SD3i103734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:03:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SD3at03689 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:03:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-78-173.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.78.173]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA05080 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:03:05 GMT Message-ID: <001301c0a186$b46b62c0$ad4e063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <001a01c0a164$2889e0a0$e845063e@dodona> <000701c0a171$b23a1060$dac301d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:59:55 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: 28 February 2001 10:32 Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? ----------------- \x/ --------------- > 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 > +=+ David's examples are helpfully illustrative of the nature of the problems. However, by putting together the elements of what we have been saying about this EBU conversation piece I do think we ought to be able to come up with wording that establishes good principles for the implementation of this law, and if we do I would favour including them in the law book as a footnote. I am coming more and more to believe that irrationality should be an absolute condition unrelated to the class of player, so that in judgements of irrationality we should treat all players, of all classes, just as we would treat a front-line expert; or, if you like, use the standard attributed to the latter as the criterion by which irrationality will be judged generally for all. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 1 00:05:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SD5DX04254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:05:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SD56t04215 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:05:06 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA29148; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:05:03 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Feb 28 14:08:55 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 <01K0N9XD4VE4003TE1@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:04:21 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:59:24 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:04:19 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking To: "'np93je@mail.telepac.pt'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C0@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 HdW: > > > > 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. see below > > > > 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. Since we all agree this to be complicated we need to be as clear as diamonds. Assumption: top = 10; +170 (2S + 2) gives 8, 3D minus 1 (+ 100) gives 4 and 3D making (- 110) gives 1 mp. So there is a damage of 7 mp, of which 3 are subsequent and 4 are consequent. So the adjusted score is based on redress for 4 mp. Score for NS is 1 + 4 mp (or 8 minus 3). Talking about the other scores in NS: > > RM: I slightly disagree. For one side, +170. For the other > that gets the MPs > of 170 minus 4 mps see my remark above: should be MP's for 170 minus 3, isn't it? , that is an AAS and you should simply > score the field one > result short (as when you give a percentage score). > This demonstrates WBF's lack of interest in scoring, we do not have regulations for it. I think that Rui has the best solution, this result for NS does not fit in the frequency table, so let us use Neuberg for the others with one result short. 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 Mar 1 00:06:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SD6Ij04627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:06:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SD6Bt04598 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:06:11 +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 f1SD66e53470 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:06:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010228074920.00b58380@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, 28 Feb 2001 08:05:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) In-Reply-To: <01022714035203.03214@psa836> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:35 AM 2/27/01, David 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. That raises the question of whether South is allowed to "wake up" after the 5D bid, but the answer doesn't matter. His 5H bid was predicated on the assumption that North had forgotten Texas; without this assumption, his only sensible non-suggested LA would be 6H (or possibly 5S, reaching 6H eventually). Had the auction ended at 5H making exactly (or going down) we would have to decide whether to adjust to the result in 6H. >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. They're right on the former for sure. Since there was no possible infraction prior to the 5D bid, I don't see how an adjustment to 4H could be justified. They're right about the latter as well; North's 5H bid might or might not have been an infraction, but there was no damage, therefore no reason to adjust. >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. Without L12C3 they get +1430. With L12C3 they get the weighted average of +1430 and +1430 (fortunately, I don't have to suggest weights). 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 Mar 1 00:35:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SDYfS14439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:34:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SDYZt14405 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:34:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.72.121] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Y6kN-0000Cd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:34:27 +0000 Message-ID: <004a01c0a18b$2498e5a0$79487ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A9CD96D.C4DAEBE6@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:34:12 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > 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. Not really. In a recent English case where a pair had bid 5D after a hesitation, and been doubled in it by a lunatic, it was held that an appropriate adjustment should be: EW (the hesitators) plus 190 (in 4D making seven, from which the wild or gambling nature of the double may be apparent), losing 6 IMPs to minus 440 at the other table. NS (the lunatics) would have been plus 6 IMPs without the infraction. That cost them 6 IMPs, but the lunatic double cost them a further 7 IMPs (as they were -750 against plus 440). So, 6 IMPs of damage had been done by the infraction, but 7 IMPs of damage had been done by the lunacy. NS were thus scored as -1 IMP on the board. It was a multiple teams event, so no further adjustment was necessary; had it been so, the hesitators' team would have been -3 IMPs overall (the average of -6 and +1, rounded in favour of the NOs). Ton's approach is simply an extension of this type of ruling to matchpointed pairs events. I think it is a good idea. Is it legal? I don't see why not. It is, in effect, a variation of an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity, and that is permitted under Law 12C3. I added this caveat to the L&E's opinion when the case arose: "But this procedure should apply only when the non-cheating side is in a position where, entirely due to the cheating, it had to suffer a loss despite anything it could do. If the non-cheating side actually had the potential for gain due to the opponents' infraction, and not only failed to gain but incurred a loss, it should not be given any kind of redress (for, at the point of the infraction, it had not been irrevocably damaged - rather, it had been placed in a potentially advantageous position). As I understand it, the official approach is this: suppose NS cheat their way to 6S, against which East moronically fails to cash his two aces. Now, there are those who would adjust for both sides to 5S+1; whereas I would adjust to 5S+1 for the cheats, 6S making against the morons, for the damage done them was avoidable by them in this case, and their failure to avoid it was not connected with the infraction itself (or not sufficiently tightly coupled to the infraction itself for redress to be due)." 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 Mar 1 00:46:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SDkIN18516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:46:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f1SDkBt18477 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:46:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1SDk6D75636 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:46:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010228083459.00b596c0@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, 28 Feb 2001 08:45:10 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-Reply-To: References: <3A9B9C8E.FD3FA482@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:25 PM 2/27/01, Gordon wrote: >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)." Calling any dominated strategy irrational is far too extreme. Consider a declarer in, say, 4H with 10 top tricks and a finesse for one more. He faces his hand and says "11 tricks if I find the HK, otherwise 10." But if he were to play his cards in exactly the right order, he would have a show-up squeeze; this is clearly a dominant strategy, since it will gain the trick whenever the finesse would win or when the HK is singleton offside. By Gordon's argument, it would be irrational not to find the show-up, since the simple early finesse by comparison "sometimes loses and never gains", so if the HK is indeed stiff offside we would award 11 tricks, even to a declarer who'd never heard of a show-up squeeze. > > 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. Ditto. Not because a novice declarer should be given 11 tricks in the above scenario with the HK stiff offside, however, but rather because an expert declarer should be given 10. The expert may have written the book on show-up squeezes, but he carelessly (not irrationally) missed this one. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 1 00:49:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SDnZh19665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:49:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SDnSt19629 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:49:29 +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 14Y6yq-000NT8-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:49:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:44:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? References: <001a01c0a164$2889e0a0$e845063e@dodona> <000701c0a171$b23a1060$dac301d5@pbncomputer> <001301c0a186$b46b62c0$ad4e063e@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001301c0a186$b46b62c0$ad4e063e@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001301c0a186$b46b62c0$ad4e063e@pacific>, Grattan Endicott writes snip >> >+=+ David's examples are helpfully illustrative >of the nature of the problems. However, by >putting together the elements of what we have >been saying about this EBU conversation piece >I do think we ought to be able to come up with >wording that establishes good principles for >the implementation of this law, and if we do I >would favour including them in the law book as >a footnote. I am coming more and more to >believe that irrationality should be an absolute >condition unrelated to the class of player, so >that in judgements of irrationality we should >treat all players, of all classes, just as we >would treat a front-line expert; or, if you like, >use the standard attributed to the latter as the >criterion by which irrationality will be judged >generally for all. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I am strongly in favour of this approach. As someone who deals with bum claims on an almost daily basis I dislike having to judge the class of player - although I will have a good idea of the strength of the field. In my view we should apply the irrationality test to the field, rather than the player. Simply put, I still would like to rule differently in the Japanese Ladies game, as compared with the Friday night YC bear pit. But given any player who plays in both I would apply different criteria depending where she was playing. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 1 01:22:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SEMU727482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:22:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SEMNt27478 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:22:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Y7Ue-0001pK-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:22:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:17:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes >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. > I strongly hold that only the subsequent damage should be assessed. To put it in my best East-Enders style "I don't get screwed for oppo's cheating, just for my stupidity" The EBU L&E is aware the problem exists, and had decreed not to permit this approach. I sent them a few hands with some cogent comments and it is currently thinking about whether to rethink this. This is normal for Lawmakers of course. In a few weeks me might be in a position to give you a definite 'Maybe' Grattan, I believe, agrees with me, and my understanding is that the WBF supports his position. cheers john > > > > >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. > This is a good example of a split score. If one follows this route then it is correct. Additionally one then adjusts the NS score to cater for aspect of the "cheating" > >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/ -- 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 Mar 1 01:39:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SEcuH27697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:38:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f1SEclt27650 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:38:50 +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 14Y7ji-0003f5-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:37:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:33:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A9CD96D.C4DAEBE6@village.uunet.be> <004a01c0a18b$2498e5a0$79487ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <004a01c0a18b$2498e5a0$79487ad5@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 <004a01c0a18b$2498e5a0$79487ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes snip > >"But this procedure should apply only when the non-cheating side is in a >position where, entirely due to the cheating, it had to suffer a loss >despite anything it could do. If the non-cheating side actually had the >potential for gain due to the opponents' infraction, and not only failed >to gain but incurred a loss, it should not be given any kind of redress >(for, at the point of the infraction, it had not been irrevocably >damaged - rather, it had been placed in a potentially advantageous >position). As I understand it, the official approach is this: suppose NS >cheat their way to 6S, against which East moronically fails to cash his >two aces. Now, there are those who would adjust for both sides to 5S+1; >whereas I would adjust to 5S+1 for the cheats, 6S making against the >morons, for the damage done them was avoidable by them in this case, and >their failure to avoid it was not connected with the infraction itself >(or not sufficiently tightly coupled to the infraction itself for >redress to be due)." The problem with this approach is that the pair defending 6S were not defending 5S, and we have no objective test for how the play would have gone. So whatever else we must remove 6S from the equation. The subsequent damage to the morons is the difference between 6S making and 6S down 1. The score should be: both sides: a 12c3 70% of 5S=, 30% of 5S+1 (or whatever, weighted against the cheats) additionally: morons penalised by the difference between 6S= and 6S-1. I can imagine the morons going into negative matchpoint territory here too. cheers john > > >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 Mar 1 01:50:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SEoQB01663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:50:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SEoJt01633 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:50:20 +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 JAA17269; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:49:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA105801769; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:49:29 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:49:24 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, cyaxares@lineone.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:49:23 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1SEoMt01648 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: ----+=+ I would say that if a player fails to recognize that he has thirteen tricks it is quite rational to concede one. ________________________________________________________ The way I effectively ruled this case. Thx all for your comments. They confirm that Law 71C is not so easy to apply and should to be rewritten as proposed by Hirsh: "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." 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 Mar 1 01:55:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SEtOZ02996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:55:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SEtHt02954 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 01:55:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Y80U-000I9q-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:55:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:50:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes snip >> > >This demonstrates WBF's lack of interest in scoring, we do not have >regulations for it. I think that Rui has the best solution, this result for >NS does not fit in the frequency table, so let us use Neuberg for the others >with one result short. > Uh? law 78A is perfectly clear. We build a frequency table for NS who are a competitive group. We, so to speak, don't give a damn about EW at this point. We score the NS line and award match points. that the frequency table is totally different from the EW table is *not* relevant. We then score the EW line, taking no account of the NS frequencies. We are too used to thinking of a frequency table applying to a traveller. it doesn't, it applies to a line. I'm running a "reverse ethics" game on Board 1, the game is full of cheats and I award split (and weighted) scores on every single result on board 1. There is *no* frequency chart in the traditional traveller sense (hence no possible Neuberg) but there is a perfect frequency chart for NS and an entirely different one for EW. eg NS 4% of 4600, 122% of 4000, 76% of 3400 all the way to a total of 1100% for the 11 results I need. and similarly for EW 1100% of -50. No other approach is remotely rational :)) >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/ -- 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 Mar 1 02:06:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SF6Oo06878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:06:24 +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-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 f1SF6Ht06842 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:06:18 +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 f1SF6DD82704 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:06:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@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, 28 Feb 2001 10:05:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:33 AM 2/28/01, Tony wrote: >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). This raises two questions: (1) Should a revoke be considered a "wild, gambling or irrational" action? I don't think so, but the consensus of BLML seems to be otherwise, so let's assume it should be and go on... (2) Given (1), is -110 the correct result for N-S? It certainly isn't "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable... had the irregularity not occurred". Here Tony has ruled that "had the irregularity not occurred" N-S would have played in 2S. Putting aside the question of what to do about North's "wild, gambling or irrational" revoke and simply applying L12C2 as written, one could justify awarding +140/-170, although I would probably rule +140/-140 on the actual hand. Afficianados of L12C3 might want to make the case for +140/-155! Ah, but North has revoked, and revoking is a "wild, gambling or irrational" action, and therefore we should not provide redress for the "self-inflicted damage" N-S suffered as a result of the revoke. OK. But the damage North "inflicted" on himself by his revoke is the matchpoint difference between -110 and +100, which could be considerably less than the matchpoint difference between -110 and +140, and I see no justification for depriving N-S of the additional matchpoint difference between +100 and +140, to which they appear to be clearly entitled even if we take the harshest possible view of the revoke. >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? For a simple split score, the usual procedure is to include the N-S and E-W scores among the other scores in the respective fields and matchpoint the fields separately. So if the adjudicated results are -110/-170, for example, the N-S and E-W results at any other table which had a result between NS -110 and NS +170 would not add up to a full board, but the total number of matchpoints awarded to each field would not be affected. Under the alternative method of L12C2, it's not clear whether you matchpoint the other tables against average or against the actual result obtained at the table before you adjust. I've always assumed the latter; since common practice in the ACBL is to adjust in total points it has never mattered to a ruling I've had to make, but I'm curious what the list might think. When some portion of the normal redress is considered "self-inflicted" and thus not to be awarded, the easiest procedure seems to be to assign the L12C2 result (split or not) and matchpoint normally (as above if split), then compute the N-S matchpoints for +100 and -110, take the difference, and subtract it from the initially computed N-S result. I interpret L12C2 as allowing this approach; it explicitly permits adjusting in matchpoints or in total points prior to matchpointing, and I read this as leaving room for both types of adjustments to be applied to the same deal. 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 Mar 1 02:13:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SFD8809251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:13:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SFD1t09210 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:13:02 +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 f1SFCv368886 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:12:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010228100856.00b56de0@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, 28 Feb 2001 10:12:33 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-Reply-To: <001a01c0a164$2889e0a0$e845063e@dodona> 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 03:54 AM 2/28/01, Grattan wrote: >+=+ 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. This strikes me as so right on that I am breaking my self-imposed rule against writing "me too" messages when I have nothing substantive to add to say so. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 1 02:34:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SFY0n16511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:34:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SFXrt16477 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:33:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.99.55.25] (helo=[195.99.55.25]) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Y8br-0003mw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:33:50 +0000 From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:33:24 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1SFXut16492 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: >Consider a declarer in, say, 4H with 10 top tricks and a finesse for one more. He faces his hand and says "11 tricks if I find the HK, otherwise 10." But if he were to play his cards in exactly the right order, he would have a show-up squeeze [snip] >The expert may have written the book on show-up squeezes, but he carelessly (not irrationally) missed this one. A show-up squeeze against the king of trumps? Very careless indeed - his place in history would have been assured but for such negligence. 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 Mar 1 02:45:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SFjEt20368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:45:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SFj6t20328 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:45:07 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA19599; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:45:03 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Feb 28 16:48:46 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 <01K0NFJ1U85K003U1F@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:44:37 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:39:40 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:44:35 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking To: "'John (MadDog) Probst'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The EBU L&E is aware the problem exists, and had decreed not to permit > this approach. I sent them a few hands with some cogent > comments and it > is currently thinking about whether to rethink this. This is normal > for Lawmakers Lawmakers where and what? Didn't we agree that Lawmakers concerning the bridge laws are not found there? Yes Grattan, and I know that even I am not a lawmaker when not in a meeting with my dear lawmaker collegues. of course. > > In a few weeks me might be in a position to give you a > definite 'Maybe' may be what? A liking it or not, may be. ton > > Grattan, I believe, agrees with me, and my understanding is > that the WBF > supports his position. May be 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 Mar 1 03:01:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SG1LO22868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:01:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SG1Ft22864 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:01:15 +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 LAA16401 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:01:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA15949 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:01:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:01:11 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102281601.LAA15949@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: alain gottcheiner > 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. This is the key point. While I'm willing to be persuaded, I'm afraid the arguments haven't been convincing so far. With South's heart suit being so weak, it doesn't take an extreme hand in North for playing in diamonds to be right. (South has AKx Qxxxxx AQx x .) Why shouldn't North have QJx Kx KJTxxx AQ ? I agree that this isn't very good bidding by North, but (without UI) the auction is impossible anyway. You can make the clubs Ax if you prefer. Or put in a seventh diamond instead of a spade. Or maybe North's hearts are stiff K. Remember, too, that this is the ACBL. A LA is an action that some peers will "seriously consider," even if none will actually take it. Even if you don't like passing 6D, I think you have to seriously consider it. Can someone explain why passing is clearly wrong? In the rest of the world, passing 6D may not be a LA. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 1 03:06:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SG6iO22881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:06:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SG6ct22877 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:06:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-57-186.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.57.186]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA13056 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:06:07 GMT Message-ID: <000b01c0a1a0$46616080$ba397bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:04:26 -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 To: 'Robin Barker' ; Kooijman, A. Cc: Sent: 28 February 2001 10:39 Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking > > > 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. > +=+ In principle I believe the European appeals committees where this approach was in part nurtured should be thought to deal with 'real life'. +=+ > > ---------------- \x/ --------------- > > > (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 > +=+ Bridge equity is a judgemental subject that lies within the domain of appeals committees, and before that with the Directors. In each instance it is for the appeals committee ultimately to form its view of what is equitable. ~ 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 Mar 1 03:40:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SGecB29336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:40:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SGeVt29332 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:40:32 +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 LAA22913 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA157438426; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:40:26 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:40:24 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal 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, 28 Feb 2001 11:40:23 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1SGeYt29333 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLMLrs, Against a S contract by South, West lead the HK. Declarer won with dummy's A and played a S, East discarding the D2, and the trick was won by West. Before West played to the next trick, East says "Oh! I do have a S" and called the TD. My first reaction was routine. According to Law 63, the revoke is not established (offending side did not play to the next trick) and must be corrected. The card so witdrawn becomes a major penalty card (Law 62) and Law 50 applies. As West (offender's partner) was on lead, I then said declarer he can require or forbid D, "the suit of the penalty card", (D2 back in hand) or let West choose his lead (D2 remains a penalty card). Quite easy. Then the declarer threw a "bomb": "I prefer to forbid a C lead. I do know they play Roman discards. D2 ask for a C switch...I have seen this before". I read and read again Law 50D2(a) and said declarer I was stuck with the text "require the defender to lead the suit of the penalty card or to prohibit him from leading that suit". So I asked him to choose one of these options and told I will adjust score (using Law 72B) if there is damage and I deem the revoke was intentional. There was no problem on this deal and I let the score stand. Declarer accepted my ruling but asked me to watch for such "false" revokes. He told he have seen some during the last month.... I privately told E-W to pay attention to this kind of offence. Your comments please. Should I do something else? Do you think Law 50 should be like Law 26: if withdrawn card related to specified suit or suits.....then declared can require or forbid lead in this or these suits ? 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 Mar 1 03:43:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SGhhr29352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:43:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SGhbt29348 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 03:43:37 +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 IAA13405; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:43:20 -0800 Message-Id: <200102281643.IAA13405@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:05:41 EST." <4.3.2.7.1.20010228074920.00b58380@127.0.0.1> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:43:19 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > Score stands. Without L12C3 they get +1430. With L12C3 they get the > weighted average of +1430 and +1430 . . . I don't think this is quite right. South had at least *two* logical alternatives besides the bid he actually chose, which may or may not be an infraction; therefore, the adjusted score using L12C3 should be the weighted average of +1430, +1430, and +1430. -- 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 Mar 1 04:15:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SHEhg29378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 04:14:43 +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 f1SHEat29374 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 04:14:37 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id SAA09548; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:14:22 +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 SAA29066; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:14:14 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010228181638.00894e30@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 18:16:38 +0100 To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal 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 11:40 28/02/01 -0500, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, > >Against a S contract by South, West lead the HK. Declarer won with >dummy's A >and played a S, East discarding the D2, and the trick was won by West. >Before >West played to the next trick, East says "Oh! I do have a S" and called >the TD. > >My first reaction was routine. According to Law 63, the revoke is not >established >(offending side did not play to the next trick) and must be corrected. >The card so >witdrawn becomes a major penalty card (Law 62) and Law 50 applies. > >As West (offender's partner) was on lead, I then said declarer he can >require or >forbid D, "the suit of the penalty card", (D2 back in hand) or let West >choose >his lead (D2 remains a penalty card). Quite easy. > >Then the declarer threw a "bomb": "I prefer to forbid a C lead. I do >know they play > Roman discards. D2 ask for a C switch...I have seen this before". AG : there is one easy way to avoid the C return. Enforce the diamond return. Forbidding a club lead would be less restrictive, so there would be (assuming you fear a Club return) no case where forbidding a club lead would work, and forcing a diamond return would not. No special provisions are needed. Bomb succesfully defused. 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 Mar 1 04:46:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SHk8529397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 04:46:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SHk2t29393 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 04:46:03 +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 f1SHjxD94451 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:45:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010228124455.00b4b9d0@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, 28 Feb 2001 12:45:35 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:33 AM 2/28/01, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > >A show-up squeeze against the king of trumps? Very careless indeed - >his place in history would have been assured but for such negligence. Oops. Must have had hearts on the brain today. 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 Mar 1 05:37:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SIaiM29438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 05:36:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SIaYt29430 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 05:36:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-111.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.111]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1SIaTS23022 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:36:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A9D42C9.6C69E46D@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:26:17 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A9CD96D.C4DAEBE6@village.uunet.be> <004a01c0a18b$2498e5a0$79487ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This problem is not simple. "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article <004a01c0a18b$2498e5a0$79487ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn > writes > > snip > > > >"But this procedure should apply only when the non-cheating side is in a > >position where, entirely due to the cheating, it had to suffer a loss > >despite anything it could do. If the non-cheating side actually had the > >potential for gain due to the opponents' infraction, and not only failed > >to gain but incurred a loss, it should not be given any kind of redress > >(for, at the point of the infraction, it had not been irrevocably > >damaged - rather, it had been placed in a potentially advantageous > >position). As I understand it, the official approach is this: suppose NS > >cheat their way to 6S, against which East moronically fails to cash his > >two aces. Now, there are those who would adjust for both sides to 5S+1; > >whereas I would adjust to 5S+1 for the cheats, 6S making against the > >morons, for the damage done them was avoidable by them in this case, and > >their failure to avoid it was not connected with the infraction itself > >(or not sufficiently tightly coupled to the infraction itself for > >redress to be due)." > > The problem with this approach is that the pair defending 6S were not > defending 5S, and we have no objective test for how the play would have > gone. True, and this will be watched in every case, but unimportant in our current discussion. > So whatever else we must remove 6S from the equation. The > subsequent damage to the morons is the difference between 6S making and > 6S down 1. The score should be: > > both sides: a 12c3 70% of 5S=, 30% of 5S+1 (or whatever, weighted > against the cheats) > There are 3 positions : A- the expected value of the contract reached without cheating (*) B- the expected value of the contract reached with the cheating C- the table result, after the lunacy of the NOs. We call the difference B-A the consequent damage, and C-B the subsequent damage. We seem to agree that the OS should receive the score of A, they should not even get the benefit of the subsequent damage. The position seems to be that the NOs should get a score correction of B-A. Thus their final score could be presented as : C-A+B (*) I am continuing the use of the word cheating although I don't approve of it - but it does show what we mean. What John is saying is an illustration of this principle. A is the expected result before cheating (5Sp, 30% of an overtrick) B is the expected result after cheating (6Sp, never made)(**) C is the actual result (down one) (**) I did not understand this at first either, but what John is saying is that six never makes, because you cash two tricks, while 5 sometimes makes with an overtrick. > additionally: morons penalised by the difference between 6S= and 6S-1. I > can imagine the morons going into negative matchpoint territory here > too. > Let's try an example : 30% bid the slam, and go down 70% don't bid it, and 80% reach +650, 20% get +680 that's 15 MP for -100; 58 MP for +650, 93 MP for +680 (trust me) This is a huge field, so the one table does not affect the other percentages. One table bids the slam (unethically) and makes it (through morons). Position before the infraction : 70%x58+30%x93=68.5 MP. Position after the infraction : 15 MP. Position after play : 100 MP. What we are saying is that the NOs gets 68.5 MP And John says that the NOs get 31.5 MP - 85 MP = -53.5 MP. I have said less silly things in the past, John. Oh, in theory I agree with you, but in practice - you're on your own. -- 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 Mar 1 05:37:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SIajm29439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 05:36:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SIaat29431 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 05:36:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-111.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.111]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1SIaWS23026 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:36:32 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A9D43B7.3F9128A6@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:30:15 +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] Just checking References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C0@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 "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > > Uh? law 78A is perfectly clear. We build a frequency table for NS who > are a competitive group. We, so to speak, don't give a damn about EW at > this point. We score the NS line and award match points. that the > frequency table is totally different from the EW table is *not* > relevant. We then score the EW line, taking no account of the NS > frequencies. We are too used to thinking of a frequency table applying > to a traveller. it doesn't, it applies to a line. > I'll be just as certain of my point : It Does. We compare the result at our table with that of other tables. Not with other NS's. Try to formulate why you are so certain of your point John, and you'll see that there is no good reason for one or the other. You have so long been defending that scores needn't balance, probably because you did not realise there is a way they could, and now you believe what you've been defending. It's wrong. -- 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 Mar 1 06:25:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SJPc705360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 06:25:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SJPUt05314 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 06:25:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-253.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.253]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 175B236B88; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:25:22 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006a01c0a1bb$963fe520$fdb5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , "alain gottcheiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:18:58 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>Against a S contract by South, West lead the HK. Declarer won with >>dummy's A >>and played a S, East discarding the D2, and the trick was won by West. >>Before >>West played to the next trick, East says "Oh! I do have a S" and called >>the TD. >> >>My first reaction was routine. According to Law 63, the revoke is not >>established >>(offending side did not play to the next trick) and must be corrected. >>The card so >>witdrawn becomes a major penalty card (Law 62) and Law 50 applies. >> >>As West (offender's partner) was on lead, I then said declarer he can >>require or >>forbid D, "the suit of the penalty card", (D2 back in hand) or let West >>choose >>his lead (D2 remains a penalty card). Quite easy. Well, not so easy. What is wrong with the way the TD handled this case according to this description? (I am not talking about roman discards, but about basics) 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 Mar 1 06:25:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SJPWI05321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 06:25:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SJPPt05277 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 06:25:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-253.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.253]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D83B36B2D; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:25:19 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006901c0a1bb$94624b80$fdb5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:12:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>This demonstrates WBF's lack of interest in scoring, we do not have >>regulations for it. I think that Rui has the best solution, this result for >>NS does not fit in the frequency table, so let us use Neuberg for the others >>with one result short. >> > >Uh? law 78A is perfectly clear. We build a frequency table for NS who >are a competitive group. We, so to speak, don't give a damn about EW at >this point. We score the NS line and award match points. that the >frequency table is totally different from the EW table is *not* >relevant. We then score the EW line, taking no account of the NS >frequencies. We are too used to thinking of a frequency table applying >to a traveller. it doesn't, it applies to a line. > I am not sure we are talking about the same subject here. (this is to be polite: in Dutch I would have said that you don't understand my point). Of course we calculate NS and EW seperately, that is what I said in my answer. The problem is that we do not have a total point score for this NS pair, partly damaged by an infraction, so it doesn't fit in the frequency table. How do we deal with that? Awaiting your answer, 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 Mar 1 07:11:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SKBOa14788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 07:11:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SKBIt14784 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 07:11:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SDM3903998; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:22:03 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:15:42 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022813220300.03963@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (Please limit your line length; your post appeared on my computer as alternating 70-character and 10-character lines.) On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > Against a S contract by South, West lead the HK. Declarer won with > dummy's A and played a S, East discarding the D2, and the trick was > won by West. Before West played to the next trick, East says "Oh! I do > have a S" and called the TD. > As West (offender's partner) was on lead, I then said declarer he can > require or forbid D, "the suit of the penalty card", (D2 back in > hand) or let West choose his lead (D2 remains a penalty card). > Quite easy. > Then the declarer threw a "bomb": "I prefer to forbid a C lead. I do > know they play Roman discards. D2 ask for a C switch...I have seen > this before". Information arising from the withdrawn action is unauthorized. That is, the fact that East chose to discard the D2 is UI to West, and given that E-W are playing Roman discards, West may not lead a club if he has an LA. Declarer can require a diamond lead, which will certainly prevent a club lead unless West is void in diamonds. -- 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 Mar 1 07:55:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SKscu14845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 07:54:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SKsWt14841 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 07:54:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA16808 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:00:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102282100.QAA16808@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20010228181638.00894e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228181638.00894e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:00:50 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 28 February 2001 at 18:16, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 11:40 28/02/01 -0500, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >>Hi BLMLrs, >> Hi Laval. Could you please try to keep your lines down to 75 characters or so? It really is difficult to read when every second line is two words long. Having said that, I'm reformatting :-). >>Against a S contract by South, West lead the HK. Declarer won with >>dummy's A and played a S, East discarding the D2, and the trick was >>won by West. Before West played to the next trick, East says "Oh! I >>do have a S" and called the TD. >> >>My first reaction was routine. According to Law 63, the revoke is not >>established (offending side did not play to the next trick) and must >>be corrected. The card so witdrawn becomes a major penalty card >>(Law 62) and Law 50 applies. >> >>As West (offender's partner) was on lead, I then said declarer he can >>require or forbid D, "the suit of the penalty card", (D2 back in hand) >>or let West choose his lead (D2 remains a penalty card). Quite easy. >> >>Then the declarer threw a "bomb": "I prefer to forbid a C lead. I do >>know they play Roman discards. D2 ask for a C switch...I have seen >>this before". > >AG : there is one easy way to avoid the C return. Enforce the diamond >return. Forbidding a club lead would be less restrictive, so there would be >(assuming you fear a Club return) no case where forbidding a club lead >would work, and forcing a diamond return would not. No special provisions >are needed. > > Bomb successfully defused. Diamond Ace, Club switch. *BOOM* :-). That's why the provisions on forbidding a lead are "until the player loses the lead". However, there was a little thing, added to the Laws in 1997 which defuses the bomb nicely - "other information [than must be played at first legal opportunity" arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner"[1]. So the club switch is "illegal use of UI" unless there is no other LA (or unless they have a gadget, in normal use, that allows the D2 to be request for a club switch on the play of the DA. I don't know of one, but I know Nothing, I see Nothing! And there's always L72B1 to fall back on - I would have a quiet word with all concerned about this. Warn declarer that "I have seen this before", at least if it meant "I have seen this from them before", is inappropriate, and I would appreciate if those kinds of comments in public stopped (I would likely remind him of the existance and purpose of the Recorder From, and would he like one?). Warn defenders that doing this is likely to get them ruled against through L72B1, and if it happens frequently, is likely to get them before a C&E. "No, I'm not saying you do this deliberately; I know you don't. But those who would do it deliberately would do the same thing, and the Laws say I have to rule the same against both. And a reputation for this will eventually get to those people who are allowed to say that you do this deliberately and suspend you; you don't want that, do you?" Michael. [1] Interestingly enough, the extent of this wording is in L50C (Disposition of mPC), and in L50D1 (Disposition of MPC - Offender to Play), but not in L50D2a (MPC - Offender's Partner On Lead). I would assume that it should be; I have ruled as if it were; I can't see how information the D2 conveys is UI while the card is on the table, but not UI once it has been picked up. But then again, I haven't truly understood this addition since it was put in. If I am wrong, and "force a diamond" suddenly makes the knowledge that partner wanted a club switch not UI, then I guess it is best for declarer to say "Lead whatever you want", and get a UI ruling if they "find" the club switch. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 1 08:28:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SLS3I25167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:28:03 +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 f1SLRrt25113 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:27:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-30-125.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.30.125]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA08179 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:27:22 GMT Message-ID: <002501c0a1cd$5712ee80$7d1e7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200102281601.LAA15949@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:04:52 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts." - Charles Darwin. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) > Why shouldn't North have QJx Kx KJTxxx AQ ? I agree > that this isn't very good bidding by North, but (without > UI) the auction is impossible anyway. You can make > the clubs Ax if you prefer. Or put in a seventh diamond > instead of a spade. Or maybe North's hearts are stiff K. > > Can someone explain why passing is clearly wrong? > > In the rest of the world, passing 6D may not be a LA. > -- +=+ I think a question to be considered is what South is to understand if North alerts the transfer and then bids 5D. Could it be that he has Hearts A K x.x. and Diamonds K.x.? Or does it mean that he has a false hand including a lot of Diamonds? I would want to learn something of the message of the auction without UI since as an AC member I face the problem of what is suggested by the UI. If there is any sense in 5D with a strong H fit, you might think he must have Two Aces in order to make a mild try, but if this is the case would not 5C be his call? I would listen very carefully, ask questions but offer few positive thoughts until I had clarified my mind on this aspect of the auction. Have a go, my friends! My other observation is that E-W are entitled to their poor score if N-S tumble legally into a winning contract; 'convention disruption' is not (?yet) a violation of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 1 08:28:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SLS5n25176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:28:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SLRst25121 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:27:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-30-125.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.30.125]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA08222; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:27:23 GMT Message-ID: <002601c0a1cd$58505080$7d1e7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "'John (MadDog) Probst'" Cc: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:26:53 -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 "The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts." - Charles Darwin. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'John (MadDog) Probst' ; Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 3:44 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking > > The EBU L&E is aware the problem exists, and had decreed > not to permit this approach. I sent them a few hands with >> some cogent comments and it is currently thinking about > > whether to rethink this. This is normal for Lawmakers > > Lawmakers where and what? Didn't we agree that Lawmakers > concerning the bridge laws are not found there? Yes Grattan, > and I know that even I am not a lawmaker when not in a > meeting with my dear lawmaker collegues. > > > > of course. > > > > In a few weeks me might be in a position to give you a > > definite 'Maybe' > > > may be what? A liking it or not, may be. > > ton > > > > > Grattan, I believe, agrees with me, and my understanding is > > that the WBF supports his position. > > > May be > > ton > +=+ I am not clear how my name got into this, nor what position the WBF is said to support. I will have either expressed a personal opinion or have referred to a committee decision. Definitely. Our colleagues are firm in their insistence that none of us appear to commit them to a position not agreed corporately in committee, and rightly so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 1 08:43:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SLhAc25499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:43:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SLh4t25495 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:43:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-36-172.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.36.172]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA24686 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:42:34 GMT Message-ID: <003201c0a1cf$76da63e0$7d1e7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <01022813220300.03963@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:42:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts." - Charles Darwin. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David J Grabiner To: ; Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal > > Then the declarer threw a "bomb": "I prefer to forbid > > a C lead. I do know they play Roman discards. D2 ask > > for a C switch...I have seen this before". > > Information arising from the withdrawn action is > unauthorized. That is, the fact that East chose to > discard the D2 is UI to West, and given that E-W > are playing Roman discards, West may not lead a > club if he has an LA. > > Declarer can require a diamond lead, which will > certainly prevent a club lead unless West is void in > diamonds. > +=+ And the Director has 72B1 available if needed. Was that "I have seen this before" accusing? What was done about that? ~ 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 Thu Mar 1 08:48:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SLmIs25519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:48:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SLm1t25514 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:48:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07337; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:47:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA271106869; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:47:49 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:47:48 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, michael@farebrother.cx Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael wrote: ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:09:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from norbertf (a00-116.antw.online.be [62.112.1.116]) by carno.brus.online.be (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id XAA18711; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:08:39 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102282208.XAA18711@carno.brus.online.be> From: "Norbert Fornoville" To: Cc: "Tony Musgrove" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Just checking Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:07:33 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Tony Musgrove > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: [BLML] Just checking > Date: woensdag 28 februari 2001 6:33 > > 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). > Why should you give NS the score of -110; because North revoked in a contract he should normally not have to defend ? If North had bid 3S, pushed by this unacceptable bid of 3D (considering a situation were the bid of 3S is obvious) and revokes (let's say for a pentalty of 1 trick) and make 8 tricks then you could "maybe" adjust to 2 S = . Which law do you refer to for giving N -110 ? What are you going to do if S revokes ? He should have been dummy in 2S. What score should you have given to N if he hadn't revoked ? I think if the TD rule the contract back for E/W you must do also for N/S even if the butchered the contract. Where am I wrong ? > Norbert Fornoville Frankrijklei 160 bus 2 B 2000 ANTWERPEN 32-3-2319853 nf@glo.be -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 1 09:28:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SMSWt25593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:28:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from psa836.la.asu.edu (root@psa836.la.asu.edu [129.219.44.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SMSQt25589 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:28:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SFdDR04095 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:39:13 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:58:48 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <01022714035203.03214@psa836> In-Reply-To: <01022714035203.03214@psa836> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022815391303.03963@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This generated a lot of discussion, mostly that the table result should stand. On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, 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. > > 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. The appeal became moot, as the difference between +680 and +1430 would not have made enough of a difference for N-S to place. The director had an informal discussion with several players, and changed the contract to 5H, ruling that North should have recognized the misunderstanding at that point and passed. (I don't know what the usual formal process for appeals is at STAC's.) Had it gone through an official process, the appeal form would probably have said something like the arguments raised on BLML. "North had no UI, and therefore any bid that he makes should be allowed to stand. South had UI, but the fact that North's bidding showed a card in South's hand gave South the AI that North had forgotten the agreement." The only reasons I can see for an adjustment are the Rule of Coincidence, or a claim that South must have given UI. I don't think the Rule of Coincidence should apply here; South did not make a slam try when he should have, while North made a slam try when he shouldn't, but North's "slam try" was a clear system forget. There was no claim of UI given by South by any of the players at the table, although such a ruling is possible. The suggested change to 6D is interesting, but I don't think that it should be made even if someone on the committee thought of 5D as showing diamonds. Since North's 5D bid does not exist in the N-S system, South has to guess what it could mean, and a cue-bid is the most reasonable guess. If North has long diamonds, he would risk 5D being taken as a cue-bid and followed by 6H (or, behind screens, treated as a system forget), so I don't think South needs to seriously consider this possibility. I think this is the same situation as the standard case of 1NT-(2S)-2NT!-(P)-3C. The 2NT bidder knows with or without an alert that 2NT has been taken as Lebensohl or a transfer; he doesn't have to make up a meaning for a bid which shouldn't exist. AC's have ruled that the 2NT bidder can recover here (but not if the 1NT is an overcall). -- 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 Mar 1 09:33:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SMXdV25610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:33:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SMXXt25606 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:33:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SFiKO04099 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:44:20 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:39:49 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200102281601.LAA15949@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002501c0a1cd$5712ee80$7d1e7bd5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002501c0a1cd$5712ee80$7d1e7bd5@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022815442004.03963@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Grattan Endicott wrote: [1NT-4D-5D-5H-6D-6H, 4D not announced] > My other observation is that E-W are entitled to > their poor score if N-S tumble legally into a winning > contract; 'convention disruption' is not (?yet) a > violation of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This was not even the case of "convention disreuption" which Bobby Wolff crusades against. The N-S convention forget did not disrupt E-W at all, as E-W has all the information they needed at the time they had any decisions to make. (If South had not corrected the misexplanantion as required at the end of the auction, and a diamond was the killing lead, then convention disruption and MI might have led to an adjusting score. As the cards lie, a diamond lead would have cost a trick.) -- 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 Mar 1 10:50:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SNnfg25707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:49:41 +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 (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SNnZt25702 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:49:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.146]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:50:00 -0800 Message-ID: <004301c0a1e1$105519a0$929c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:45:45 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Kooijman, A." < > 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). > > In my opinion this is not just a subtle approach developed behind my desk, > but a 'consequent' interpretation of the laws. > In my opinion this is ........ (words fail me). It seems inspired by L12C3, as it certainly does not accord with L12C2. Thank goodness L12C3 has been rejected by the ACBL. This is really so very simple. N/S could not have avoided damage, so they get full redress, not partial redress, +170. Had they been easily able to beat 3D for +200 without the revoke, no damage, no redress, -110. In any case -170 for E/W. 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 Mar 1 11:51:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f210pJr27453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:51:19 +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-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 f210pCt27413 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:51:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14YHJF-000Mbz-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:51:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:49:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <006901c0a1bb$94624b80$fdb5f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <006901c0a1bb$94624b80$fdb5f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <006901c0a1bb$94624b80$fdb5f1c3@kooijman>, ton kooijman writes > > >>>This demonstrates WBF's lack of interest in scoring, we do not have >>>regulations for it. I think that Rui has the best solution, this result >for >>>NS does not fit in the frequency table, so let us use Neuberg for the >others >>>with one result short. >>> >> >>Uh? law 78A is perfectly clear. We build a frequency table for NS who >>are a competitive group. We, so to speak, don't give a damn about EW at >>this point. We score the NS line and award match points. that the >>frequency table is totally different from the EW table is *not* >>relevant. We then score the EW line, taking no account of the NS >>frequencies. We are too used to thinking of a frequency table applying >>to a traveller. it doesn't, it applies to a line. >> > > >I am not sure we are talking about the same subject here. (this is to be >polite: in Dutch I would have said that you don't understand my point). >Of course we calculate NS and EW seperately, that is what I said in my >answer. >The problem is that we do not have a total point score for this NS pair, >partly damaged by an infraction, so it doesn't fit in the frequency table. >How do we deal with that? > >Awaiting your answer, > >ton > we do have an assigned score of some sort, plus probably an adjustment to their final total. hence we might award 2S+1 as a score, less the difference between some other scores as a matchpoint adjustment. if a board is "playable" we always have a result. We may have some adjustments 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/ -- 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 Mar 1 11:53:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f210rZu28149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:53:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f210rKt28144 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:53:21 +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 14YHLB-000Gvr-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:53:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:51:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) References: <200102281601.LAA15949@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200102281601.LAA15949@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 <200102281601.LAA15949@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: alain gottcheiner >> 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. > >This is the key point. While I'm willing to be persuaded, I'm afraid >the arguments haven't been convincing so far. With South's heart suit >being so weak, it doesn't take an extreme hand in North for playing in >diamonds to be right. (South has AKx Qxxxxx AQx x .) > >Why shouldn't North have QJx Kx KJTxxx AQ ? I agree that this isn't >very good bidding by North, but (without UI) the auction is impossible >anyway. You can make the clubs Ax if you prefer. Or put in a seventh >diamond instead of a spade. Or maybe North's hearts are stiff K. > >Remember, too, that this is the ACBL. A LA is an action that some >peers will "seriously consider," even if none will actually take it. >Even if you don't like passing 6D, I think you have to seriously >consider it. Can someone explain why passing is clearly wrong? > >In the rest of the world, passing 6D may not be a LA. Concur with ACBL 6D. and 6H in the rest of the world, as well >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 1 12:14:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f211EPl28685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:14:25 +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 (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f211EJt28681 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:14:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.146]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:14:44 -0800 Message-ID: <00dc01c0a1ec$e729bd40$929c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:07:19 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" > 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. > > To me the footnote's purpose is merely to make clear that even a good player may make a play that is careless or inferior, but cannot be presumed to make one that is irrational. Without the footnote, there would be too much judging of "the class of player involved." That is to say, the footnote tells us NOT to take into account the player's ability in claim situations. Subjective evaluation is therefore not an issue. Do I have this right? Even if a play would be "careless or inferior" for *any* level of claimer, it can be assumed? Therefore level has nothing to do with it? Yeah, I know the footnote words have been rearranged. I guess it comes down to that word "irrational." Evidently the footnote is being interpreted to mean that what is not irrational for a bad player might be so for a good one, which requires a subjective evaluation. I don't buy it. If a bid or play is irrational, it is irrational for everyone. Look in the dictionary. Rich Colker tells me that the ACBLLC has seized on this footnote to deny weak players the presumption of bids or plays that would be beneficial to them, but are judged too unlikely for "the class of player involved." For instance, if a defender's claim would be invalidated by good declarer play, then the claim is allowed if it is judged that the declarer would not find that line, regardless of what an expert dummy points out. (I believe the BLML consensus was contrary to this.) This "class" assumption has come into the picture even for L16A, which has no asterisk following "logical alternative" pointing to a footnote about the "class of player involved." Nor does L12C2 have such a footnote, yet both are being adjudicated as if there were one. My suggestion: Change that footnote to read "would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for even a strong player." Then, apply only objective judgments to claims, L16A (LA), and L12C2. Objectivity has its drawbacks, of course, but is a lot easier to apply than subjectivity. 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 Mar 1 12:29:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f211TFU28709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:29:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f211T9t28705 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:29:10 +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 MAA18065 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:32:37 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:22:11 +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 2001030112265998:4038 ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:26:59 +1100 Received: by immcbrn1.immi.gov.au(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.7 (934.1 12-30-1999)) id 4A256A02.000D65E6 ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:26:20 +1000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IMMI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <4A256A02.000D64E6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:26:13 +1000 Subject: Re: [BLML] Fiddler on the Roof Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 01/03/2001 12:27:00 PM, Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 01/03/2001 12:27:00 PM, Serialize complete at 01/03/2001 12:27:00 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk One suggested: >>b) Inversion of L72B3 to specifically cater for the new >>technology of active ethics. Alain Gottcheiner replied: >I like this idea, but it is impossible to apply. >Demanding that a player disclose any irregularity >by his side would be impossible, because a player >might always answer he didn't notice, and at >least part of the time it would be true. >If you revoked, you don't know that you did. Else >you wouldn't. How can the TD penalize you for >failing to disclose it? [snip] >There remains a small core of irregularities that >would be difficult to see for the opponents, but >also for you, like revokes or incorrect concessions. >In this case, as said above, you can't penalize the >guy who failed to notice his irregularity. To do >otherwise would be pretending he noticed and did >nothing, and how would you prove that? My suggested draft of the 2008 L72B3: *There is an obligation to draw attention to an inadvertant infraction of law committed by oneself as soon as one notices it. Not noticing one's inadvertant infraction may result in the Director awarding an adjusted score (see Law 12).* 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 Mar 1 13:25:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f212PJ228785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:25:19 +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 f212PDt28781 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:25:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.146]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:25:37 -0800 Message-ID: <00e701c0a1f6$ce248320$929c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <001a01c0a164$2889e0a0$e845063e@dodona> <000701c0a171$b23a1060$dac301d5@pbncomputer> <001301c0a186$b46b62c0$ad4e063e@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:24:30 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote >...by > putting together the elements of what we have > been saying about this EBU conversation piece > I do think we ought to be able to come up with > wording that establishes good principles for > the implementation of this law, and if we do I > would favour including them in the law book as > a footnote. I am coming more and more to > believe that irrationality should be an absolute > condition unrelated to the class of player, so > that in judgements of irrationality we should > treat all players, of all classes, just as we > would treat a front-line expert; or, if you like, > use the standard attributed to the latter as the > criterion by which irrationality will be judged > generally for all. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Absolutely the right path. Now apply it to LAs and L12C2. What is logical is logical for everyone using the same system, and what is the most favorable or most unfavorable result should be decided without analyzing the abilities of the players involved. There is no magic crystal ball. 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 Mar 1 14:48:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f213lcl25190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:47:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f213lWt25186 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:47:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010301034729.RPND15476.femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:47:29 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:48:57 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <200102281601.LAA15949@cfa183.harvard.edu> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Remember, too, that this is the ACBL. A LA is an action that some > peers will "seriously consider," even if none will actually take it. > Even if you don't like passing 6D, I think you have to seriously > consider it. Can someone explain why passing is clearly wrong? > I do not think this is correct... Rich had been arguing this for years.. >From the Anaheim LC minutes: Although the Commission is generally not satisfied with the current definition of "logical alternative", there were no suggestions offered for improvement. It is generally accepted, however, that "seriously considered" must imply that some number of one's peers would actually make the call considered. Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 1 16:07:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2157NK13913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:07:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2157Ht13909 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:07:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.146]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:07:42 -0800 Message-ID: <010701c0a20d$72ca29a0$929c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:57:13 -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 Linda Trent wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > Remember, too, that this is the ACBL. A LA is an action that some > > peers will "seriously consider," even if none will actually take it. > > Even if you don't like passing 6D, I think you have to seriously > > consider it. Can someone explain why passing is clearly wrong? > > > > I do not think this is correct... Rich had been arguing this for years.. > > From the Anaheim LC minutes: > > Although the Commission is generally not satisfied with the current > definition of "logical alternative", there were no suggestions offered for > improvement. It is generally accepted, however, that "seriously considered" > must imply that some number of one's peers would actually make the call > considered. > > If that is so, why doesn't the LC rule to that effect? :)) 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 Mar 1 18:27:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f217L3u17532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:21:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f217Kvt17509 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:20:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA26449 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:24:26 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:13:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:18:05 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 01/03/2001 06:18:47 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Linda Trent revealed: >From the Anaheim LC minutes: > >Although the Commission is generally not >satisfied with the current definition of >"logical alternative", there were no >suggestions offered for improvement. It >is generally accepted, however, that >"seriously considered" must imply that >some number of one's peers would actually >make the call considered. How words in TFLB are interpreted is defined by: a) the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws; b) Chapter 1; c) the Laws in general (especially the footnotes); d) Law 80F in particular; and, e) an ordinary dictionary. The definition of *logical alternative* does not appear in categories a), b) and c). And the WBF has ruled that category d) - L80F - may only be applied to L80. So in defining *logical alternative*, the ACBL LC seems to have again exceeded its Lawful powers. The only remaining Lawful way to define *logical alternative* is category d). The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary: logical, adj. 1. of or according to logic. 2. correctly reasoned. 3. defensible or explicable on the grounds of consistency. So if I consistently overbid my values, the dictionary definition allows me to continue doing so even when pard's UI tells me that pard has undisclosed strength. Obviously, this is not the way we want bridge to be played. So I suggest that in the 2008 Laws, *logical alternative* should be defined in Chapter 1. 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 Mar 1 19:05:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f217xRV17604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:59:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f217xLt17600 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:59:21 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA08275; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:59:19 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 01 09:03:11 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 <01K0ODK7RJGE003UTE@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:59:05 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:54:07 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:59:03 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking To: "'Norbert Fornoville'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Tony Musgrove Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C4@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 Why should you give NS the score of -110; because North revoked in a > contract he should normally not have to defend ? > If North had bid 3S, pushed by this unacceptable bid of 3D > (considering a > situation were the bid of 3S is obvious) and revokes (let's say for a > pentalty of 1 trick) and make 8 tricks then you could "maybe" > adjust to 2 S > = . > Which law do you refer to for giving N -110 ? > What are you going to do if S revokes ? He should have been > dummy in 2S. > What score should you have given to N if he hadn't revoked ? > I think if the TD rule the contract back for E/W you must do > also for N/S > even if the butchered the contract. > > Where am I wrong ? You could have read some of the replies for the answer. Because there needs to be a relation per consequence between the damage and the infraction. ton > > > Norbert Fornoville > Frankrijklei 160 bus 2 > B 2000 ANTWERPEN > 32-3-2319853 > nf@glo.be > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 1 19:57:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f218pR017681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:51:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f218pLt17677 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:51:22 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA32035; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:51:19 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 01 09:55:08 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 <01K0OFDQISTO003VA6@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 01 Mar 2001 09:51:07 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 01 Mar 2001 09:46:10 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 09:51:06 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal To: "'Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, michael@farebrother.cx Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C6@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 > use > ______________________________________________________________ > _________ > Indeed.... I forgot this addition to Law 50, may be because it is > under 50D1 (Offender to Play) and went to fast to 50D2 (Offender's > Partner to lead). I think most directors around me try to ignore it, > but it is there and I see now that it can be very usefull. Thx all. This is part of the missing stuff. The other thing is that declarer is allowed to play another card and if so LHO may play another card, by which his previous played card becomes a penalty card. And who knows the winner of the trick now? Penalty cards from both R/LHO, interesting too! Reading what happened, and using my experience, I wasn't sure that this procedure took place. ton > 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 Mar 1 20:12:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f219C7d22383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:12:07 +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 f219But22334 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:11:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-57-14.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.57.14]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA06977; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:11:23 GMT Message-ID: <004001c0a22f$b20357a0$0e397bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <004301c0a1e1$105519a0$929c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:09:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts." - Charles Darwin. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking > In my opinion this is ........ (words fail me). It > seems inspired by L12C3, as it certainly does > not accord with L12C2. Thank goodness L12C3 > has been rejected by the ACBL. > +=+ 12C3 is not part of the equation. The basis is that a non-offending side is entitled to redress for damage that results from the irregularity but not for damage that does not result from the irregularity, as for example damage that is self- inflicted. The re-interpretation of the law in 1998 should be noted: "Henceforward the law is to be applied so that advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided that it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the offenders, shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. The committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot'). " - WBF LC minutes 30 August 1998. This is a formal interpretation of the law made in accordance with the By-Laws of the WBF. ~ 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 Mar 1 20:12:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f219C3622359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:12:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f219Bot22295 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:11:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-57-14.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.57.14]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA06943; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:11:20 GMT Message-ID: <003e01c0a22f$affb0480$0e397bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Linda Trent" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 07:49:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts." - Charles Darwin. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Trent To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 3:48 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) > > I do not think this is correct... Rich had been > arguing this for years.. > > >From the Anaheim LC minutes: > > Although the Commission is generally not > satisfied with the current definition of > "logical alternative", there were no suggestions > offered for improvement. It is generally > accepted, however, that "seriously considered" > must imply that some number of one's peers > would actually make the call considered. > +=+ The above is not far removed from the view of the World Bridge Federation: "A 'logical alternative' is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt 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 Mar 1 20:12:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f219C4522369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:12:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f219Bpt22304 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:11:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-57-14.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.57.14]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA06958 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:11:22 GMT Message-ID: <003f01c0a22f$b0ef2880$0e397bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <00dc01c0a1ec$e729bd40$929c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:29:46 -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: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? > ? Was it Herman or Marv who wrote: > Yeah, I know the footnote words have > been rearranged. I guess it comes down > to that word "irrational." Evidently the > footnote is being interpreted to mean > that what is not irrational for a bad > player might be so for a good one, which > requires a subjective evaluation. I don't > buy it. If a bid or play is irrational, it is > irrational for everyone. Look in the > dictionary. > +=+ "Is being interpreted" is not quite the flavour; this approach has been the official line since the footnote was written. It accepts that what may seem rational to a great number of players is not necessarily rational in the eyes of a player of advanced expertise and judgement. Personally I am not in sympathy with that since I do believe irrationality should be judged be an absolute condition; however, over the years many Directors and ACs have used their commonsense over this. ~ 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 Mar 1 21:18:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21AHVv15510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:17:31 +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 f21AHOt15477 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:17:25 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id LAA24684; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:17:10 +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 LAA26504; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:17:04 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010301111930.0089f620@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 Mar 2001 11:19:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] constructive Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello everyone, Brighton case #6 involves a 'relay' 1H over a natural 1D opening. What is a relay is clearly defined in OB14.2.2, as seen in the comments : 'forcing, asks information, constructive'. Now we need a definition of 'constructive'. Easy. Let's have a look at The Official Encyclopedia, which tells us : Constructive - a description applied to a bid that suggests game prospects. I'd suppose that, facing a normal opening bid one should hold in the vicinity of a 10-count ? It is thus IOTTMCO that the South hand (J1062/KQ76/109/1074) doesn't fit the description. It has been descripbed as 'relay without a 4-card major', and is quite lighter *and* contains both majors. Did the AC really find it 'admissible' ? The French admit a relay in intermediate-level events only if it is a strong game suggestion - quite logically, since the first concern in choosing admissible bids is the impact on opp's bidding, and in this case the impact would be limited : they would usually not wish to overcall except on obvious hands. Here, perhaps the 1H bid was in Monaco style (either natural, or constructive relay), but in this case it was, at least, misdescribed, and a PP is necessary. Also, I'm baffled by North's double, which introduced heatrts. Would he have needed to, if partner had denied a major ? Well, really, I find N/S's sequence quite fishy. What about you ? 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 Mar 1 21:33:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21AXIF21105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:33:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21AXBt21065 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:33:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f21AX3x17785 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:33:03 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:33 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) 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: Richard Hills wrote: > So if I consistently overbid my values, the > dictionary definition allows me to continue > doing so even when pard's UI tells me that > pard has undisclosed strength. > > Obviously, this is not the way we want > bridge to be played. Um - Yes it is. If you are one of those players who consistently overbid your logical alternatives will often differ from those who underbid/bid to value. If you are an inveterate overbidder then so are your peers. If your partner gives you UI about unexpected weakness I expect you to overbid in your usual cavalier fashion (and would wish to adjust if you don't). It would be wrong to punish you going in the other direction as well. 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 Mar 1 23:18:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21CHVq25981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:17:31 +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 f21CHMt25930 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:17:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-173.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.173]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f21CHHS11554 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:17:18 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A9DFDD3.AD4082AA@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:44:19 +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] Just checking References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <004301c0a1e1$105519a0$929c1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: "Kooijman, A." < > > > > In my opinion this is ........ (words fail me). It seems inspired by > L12C3, as it certainly does not accord with L12C2. Thank goodness L12C3 > has been rejected by the ACBL. > > This is really so very simple. N/S could not have avoided damage, so they > get full redress, not partial redress, +170. Had they been easily able to > beat 3D for +200 without the revoke, no damage, no redress, -110. In any > case -170 for E/W. > Sorry Marv, no need to go sounding off against L12C3 in front of the Chairman of the WBFLC, just because you believe this is too complex. I think we have lost the plot somewhat, in the meantime. NS reach 2Sp, which would make 10 tricks (+170) EW then bid an unethical 3Di, which should make 8 tricks (+100) NS then revoke, giving the contract (-110) Now it is clear to me that NS are damaged to the tune of +170 downto +100, but that the damage from the +100 downto -110 is all up to them. Do you really believe, Marv, that NS deserve +170 ? That's how simple this case is. You agree that when they could have beaten 3Di for +200, there is no damage, and no redress. Why then should you call the change to -110 all damage ? -- 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 Mar 1 23:18:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21CHX725997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:17:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21CHOt25946 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:17:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-173.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.173]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f21CHLS11594 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:17:21 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A9E006B.ACDA722D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:55:23 +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] Just checking References: <006901c0a1bb$94624b80$fdb5f1c3@kooijman> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: > > Of course we calculate NS and EW seperately, that is what I said in my > answer. The same problem arises when we use my "single table score" method. > The problem is that we do not have a total point score for this NS pair, > partly damaged by an infraction, so it doesn't fit in the frequency table. > How do we deal with that? > > Awaiting your answer, > > ton > The score for NS here is +170 minus the difference in MP between +110 and -100. First problem : which MP's ? My answer : those after the change of +110 (not arrived at correctly) to +170. That may mean that we need MP's for a score that does no longer exist. However, that is quite easy to calculate. If there are 25 scores of +120, and they score 250 MPs, and there are 50 scores of -50, and they score 175 MPs, then that means +110 should score 225 MPs (175+50=225+25=250). The same is true for the perhaps fictitious score of -100. Second problem : do we leave the +170 in there ? I think we should. This is an Adjusted Score (play has happened) not an Artificial one. We agree that +170 should have been the table score, and we only subtract for NOs. My solution would be to calculate with +170 for the table, and then to subtract MPs from NS. I once did an appeal like this in Lille. (appeal 35) The Committee ruled: For N/S : 4Sp made, -620 For E/W: -620 minus the difference in Match Points between the scores of +450 and -50. The Match Points (for E/W) for +450,-50 and -620 were 122.4, 419.5 and 523.8 respectively, so the score to E/W was 523.8 - (419.5 - 122.4) = 226.7 Match Points (39.5%). The scores I mention are the ones with -620 in there (was also the original TD decision). -- 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 Mar 1 23:41:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21Cf5V00208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:41:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f21Cf0t00199 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:41:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA11877; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:37:01 +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 NAA06277; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:40:38 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010301134305.008a2290@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 Mar 2001 13:43:05 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) 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 10:33 1/03/01 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: [Richard Hills wrote: > >> So if I consistently overbid my values, the >> dictionary definition allows me to continue >> doing so even when pard's UI tells me that >> pard has undisclosed strength. >> >> Obviously, this is not the way we want >> bridge to be played ] > >Um - Yes it is. If you are one of those players who consistently overbid >your logical alternatives will often differ from those who underbid/bid to >value. If you are an inveterate overbidder then so are your peers. If >your partner gives you UI about unexpected weakness I expect you to >overbid in your usual cavalier fashion (and would wish to adjust if you >don't). It would be wrong to punish you going in the other direction as >well. AG : I do agree. That's why it is so important to notify matters of style on your CC. You are expected to conform to those. I'm an aggressive overcaller. I would without any hesitation overcall 1M on AK9xx and out, feeling I've got something to spare. I wouldn't like to be disallowed to do so after partner's tempo as opener. You see, there would be no LA. Those people who write on their CC 'after an overcall, opener will always reopen with double if short' shouldn't be barred from doing so after their partner took some time. But if they fail to do so after a quick pass from partner, they would be liable to penalty from use of UI. This raises once again the problem of the light reopening : many contributors have expressed the view that a flat 10- or 11-count doesn't make an allowable 1NT reopening after partner has made a slow pass. The argument is : is would be too easy to reopen those hands only after partner's tempo, and pass 'on the feeling' if not. The argument is not necessarily good. According to the above, those who say they would always strive to reopen might be allowed to reopen 1NT on that famous 10-count, but of course one should be wary of the cases where they don't. 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 Mar 1 23:53:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21Crde00231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:53:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f21CrXt00227 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:53:34 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA00302; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:53:30 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 01 13:57:08 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 <01K0ONSSHK6O003UUH@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:52:21 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:47:19 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:52:15 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C8@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 > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > From: "Kooijman, A." < > > > > > > > In my opinion this is ........ (words fail me). It seems inspired by > > L12C3, as it certainly does not accord with L12C2. Thank > goodness L12C3 > > has been rejected by the ACBL. > > > > This is really so very simple. N/S could not have avoided > damage, so they > > get full redress, not partial redress, +170. Had they been > easily able to > > beat 3D for +200 without the revoke, no damage, no redress, > -110. In any > > case -170 for E/W. > > > > Sorry Marv, no need to go sounding off against L12C3 in > front of the Chairman of the WBFLC, just because you believe > this is too complex. I don't mind strong opinions, I have some myself. But they better are right. Marv's quote: 'as it certainly does not accord with L12C2'. As I tried to explain before: in my (strong) opinion it does fit into L12C2 and Grattan agrees with that. The discussion would get an appreciated quality input if Marv explains why he thinks it does not fit. Yes you need a more subtle definition and treatment of damage, but we got there in Lille. 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 Mar 2 00:13:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21D9Ig00288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:09:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com ([216.33.240.196]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f21D9Ct00283 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:09:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 05:09:03 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.44.127.187] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 07:08:52 -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: 01 Mar 2001 13:09:03.0372 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9D644C0:01C0A250] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 4:33 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) | In-Reply-To: | Richard Hills wrote: | | > So if I consistently overbid my values, the | > dictionary definition allows me to continue | > doing so even when pard's UI tells me that | > pard has undisclosed strength. | > | > Obviously, this is not the way we want | > bridge to be played. | | Um - Yes it is. If you are one of those players who consistently overbid | your logical alternatives will often differ from those who underbid/bid to | value. If you are an inveterate overbidder then so are your peers. If | your partner gives you UI about unexpected weakness I expect you to | overbid in your usual cavalier fashion (and would wish to adjust if you | don't). It would be wrong to punish you going in the other direction as | well. | | Tim West-Meads two months ago I filled in a game with a player known to consistently overbid the values held with frequent success. Perhaps it had been merely conincidence that the partners created a lot of UI. But this time I never provided UI. Amazingly, the player almost never overbid values that session- missing a couple games that we would have gotten to had consistent agression been at work. Btw, we had a 53% session. Just when will opponents know to ask for redress when the player does not overbid their values? No, it can indeed be uncanny for a player to overbid values when he has UI available. That he often winds up in the soup is evidence that he is not so great in assessing the inferences available. No, I agree with Richard's view on this. There too often is extraneaous info available, coincidently when 'consistent' overbidding is going on. Two weeks ago I watched two top players known for their consistent agression and it looked ugly to me. 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 Fri Mar 2 00:23:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21DKnl00344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:20:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21DKht00340 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:20:44 +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 f21DKZx84989 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:20:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010301074955.00b5ae30@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 Mar 2001 08:20:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) In-Reply-To: <01022815391303.03963@psa836> References: <01022714035203.03214@psa836> <01022714035203.03214@psa836> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:58 AM 2/28/01, David wrote: >This generated a lot of discussion, mostly that the table result should >stand. > >On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, 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. > > > > 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. > >The appeal became moot, as the difference between +680 and +1430 >would not have made enough of a difference for N-S to place. The >director had an informal discussion with several players, and changed >the contract to 5H, ruling that North should have recognized the >misunderstanding at that point and passed. (I don't know what the >usual formal process for appeals is at STAC's.) Based on what? Is there a rule that makes having a bidding misunderstanding an infraction? Or is he suggesting that South's failure to provide North with UI telling him that he had forgotten Texas and North's failure to "use" that UI by passing 5H is an infraction? Could you imagine that he would rule consistently with this decision had North passed 5H and been right? >Had it gone through an official process, the appeal form would probably >have said something like the arguments raised on BLML. "North had no >UI, and therefore any bid that he makes should be allowed to stand. >South had UI, but the fact that North's bidding showed a card in >South's hand gave South the AI that North had forgotten the agreement." How about arguing that South, who had the UI, did not choose from among LAs one demonstrably suggested by the UI? Or that if he did, the action subject to reversal could only be 5H, on the grounds that if he assumed 5D to be a slam try he should have bid 6H, but since he reached 6H anyhow there could not have been any damage from his failure to bid it earlier. Fortunately for any sensible adjudicator, the question of whether South should be "allowed" to "wake up" over 5D isn't relevant to this case. >The only reasons I can see for an adjustment are the Rule of >Coincidence, or a claim that South must have given UI. I don't think >the Rule of Coincidence should apply here; South did not make a slam >try when he should have, while North made a slam try when he shouldn't, >but North's "slam try" was a clear system forget. There was no claim >of UI given by South by any of the players at the table, although such a >ruling is possible. The "rule of coincidence" is not law, and has no place in this adjudication, but would be misapplied anyhow, since nobody "broke" it, unless it was South when he bid 5H instead of 6H. And while one can't argue with "possible" -- anything is possible in ACBL adjudications -- why on Earth would anyone rule that South had given UI when nobody at the table suggested such a thing or provided any evidence that suggested it? >The suggested change to 6D is interesting, but I don't think that it >should be made even if someone on the committee thought of 5D as >showing diamonds. Since North's 5D bid does not exist in the N-S >system, South has to guess what it could mean, and a cue-bid is the most >reasonable guess. If North has long diamonds, he would risk 5D being >taken as a cue-bid and followed by 6H (or, behind screens, treated as a >system forget), so I don't think South needs to seriously consider this >possibility. But South had UI telling him that North had forgotten Texas, so he is obligated to select his calls on the assumption that North had bid 5D on a Texas auction. It would have been an infraction to choose to bid as though North had long diamonds. >I think this is the same situation as the standard case of >1NT-(2S)-2NT!-(P)-3C. The 2NT bidder knows with or without an alert >that 2NT has been taken as Lebensohl or a transfer; he doesn't have to >make up a meaning for a bid which shouldn't exist. AC's have ruled >that the 2NT bidder can recover here (but not if the 1NT is an >overcall). It is similar to the extent that in both situations the player with UI from partner's failure to alert is obligated to base his actions on the assumption that the bid was understood as it was intended. It's not that the 2NT bidder is "allowed to know" that partner "understood" his call; he *must* presume this, whether he "knows" it, "knows" the opposite, or hasn't a clue. In this case South, the player with the UI, either fulfilled that obligation, or didn't but wound up in the same contract he would have anyhow leaving no case for damage. 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 Mar 2 00:24:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21DNu100369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:23:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21DNpt00364 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:23:51 +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 f21DNmI43719 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:23:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010301082212.00b5ba60@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 Mar 2001 08:23:25 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Another misdirected message getting into the loop a day late. Apologies to Laval for the double post. >At 11:40 AM 2/28/01, Laval_DUBREUIL wrote: > >>Against a S contract by South, West lead the HK. Declarer won with >>dummy's A >>and played a S, East discarding the D2, and the trick was won by West. >>Before >>West played to the next trick, East says "Oh! I do have a S" and called >>the TD. >> >>My first reaction was routine. According to Law 63, the revoke is not >>established >>(offending side did not play to the next trick) and must be corrected. >>The card so >>witdrawn becomes a major penalty card (Law 62) and Law 50 applies. >> >>As West (offender's partner) was on lead, I then said declarer he can >>require or >>forbid D, "the suit of the penalty card", (D2 back in hand) or let West >>choose >>his lead (D2 remains a penalty card). Quite easy. >> >>Then the declarer threw a "bomb": "I prefer to forbid a C lead. I do >>know they play >> Roman discards. D2 ask for a C switch...I have seen this before". >> >>I read and read again Law 50D2(a) and said declarer I was stuck with the >>text >>"require the defender to lead the suit of the penalty card or to >>prohibit him from >> leading that suit". So I asked him to choose one of these options and >>told I will >>adjust score (using Law 72B) if there is damage and I deem the revoke >>was >>intentional. >> >>There was no problem on this deal and I let the score stand. Declarer >>accepted my >>ruling but asked me to watch for such "false" revokes. He told he have >>seen some >>during the last month.... I privately told E-W to pay attention to this >>kind of offence. >> >>Your comments please. >>Should I do something else? >>Do you think Law 50 should be like Law 26: if withdrawn card related to >>specified >>suit or suits.....then declared can require or forbid lead in this or >>these suits ? > >Not necessary. Nor, for that matter, is recourse to L72B. L50D1 >covers the situation: "other information arising from facing of the >penalty card is unauthorized for partner." That East has suggested a >club lead is "other information arising from facing" the D2, and is >therefore UI to West. South may forbid a diamond lead, or keep the D2 >as a penalty card, and West still may not lead a club unless he has no >(non-suggested, not an issue here) logical alternative. (Of course, >if South forbids a diamond lead, a heart or a spade, not a diamond, >must be an LA to a club.) 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 Mar 2 00:39:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21DdJo00394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:39:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21DdDt00390 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:39:14 +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 f21DdBx88316 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:39:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010301083525.00b513f0@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 Mar 2001 08:38:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-Reply-To: <00e701c0a1f6$ce248320$929c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <001a01c0a164$2889e0a0$e845063e@dodona> <000701c0a171$b23a1060$dac301d5@pbncomputer> <001301c0a186$b46b62c0$ad4e063e@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:24 PM 2/28/01, Marvin wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote > > >...by > > putting together the elements of what we have > > been saying about this EBU conversation piece > > I do think we ought to be able to come up with > > wording that establishes good principles for > > the implementation of this law, and if we do I > > would favour including them in the law book as > > a footnote. I am coming more and more to > > believe that irrationality should be an absolute > > condition unrelated to the class of player, so > > that in judgements of irrationality we should > > treat all players, of all classes, just as we > > would treat a front-line expert; or, if you like, > > use the standard attributed to the latter as the > > criterion by which irrationality will be judged > > generally for all. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > >Absolutely the right path. Now apply it to LAs and L12C2. What is logical >is logical for everyone using the same system, and what is the most >favorable or most unfavorable result should be decided without analyzing >the abilities of the players involved. There is no magic crystal ball. I agree wholeheartedly. One of the things that makes bridge such a wonderful game is that mediocre players having good days can, and routinely do, outplay and outscore good players having bad days. Whyever would we want to write or interpret our laws as though this were not the case, or as though we didn't want it to be? 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 Mar 2 00:49:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21DncH00421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:49:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21DnWt00417 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:49:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f21DnPh12556 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:49:25 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:49 +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: <3A9DFDD3.AD4082AA@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > NS reach 2Sp, which would make 10 tricks (+170) > EW then bid an unethical 3Di No-one said 3D was unethical, or even illegal. To me it looks like a bid I'd expect about 80% of reasonable players *would* make. If the AC judges it to be close, but only 70% and that pass is an LA (in Oz) and an adjustment is in order I'll not quibble. It is unfair on the OS to call action after a difficult judgement unethical. 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 Mar 2 01:55:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21EsXG06872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 01:54:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f21EsRt06868 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 01:54:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-61-245.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.61.245]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA19460; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:53:57 GMT Message-ID: <001301c0a25f$5ac49780$f53d7bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Tim Westmead" , Cc: "Tim Westmead" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:50:24 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 01 March 2001 10:33 Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) > In-Reply-To: > Richard Hills wrote: > > > So if I consistently overbid my values, the > > dictionary definition allows me to continue > > doing so even when pard's UI tells me that > > pard has undisclosed strength. > > > > Obviously, this is not the way we want > > bridge to be played. > > Um - Yes it is. If you are one of those > players who consistently overbid your > logical alternatives will often differ from > those who underbid/bid to value. If you > are an inveterate overbidder then so > are your peers. If your partner gives > you UI about unexpected weakness I > expect you to overbid in your usual > cavalier fashion (and would wish to > adjust if you don't). It would be wrong > to punish you going in the other direction > as well. > > Tim West-Meads > +=+ The prescription approved by the WBF Executive Council for 'logical alternative' refers to the class of players in question and the partnership methods. There is no suggestion that the style of the individual player is taken into account. The judgement is made by reference to the probable actions of other players of the same class, the style of the individual concerned not being a germane issue: he has to live with what his peers would do. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 2 02:38:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21Fc6N09347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:38:06 +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 f21Fbxt09318 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:38:00 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f21Fbqb21292 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:37:52 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:37 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Roger Pewick wrote: > two months ago I filled in a game with a player known to consistently > overbid the values held with frequent success. Perhaps it had been > merely conincidence that the partners created a lot of UI. > But this time I never provided UI. Amazingly, the player almost > never overbid values that session- missing a couple games that we > would have gotten to had consistent agression been at work. > Btw, we had a 53% session. Perhaps he seldom has partners of whom he expects proper bidding. In any case there is a difference between a player who consistently overbids and one who consistently takes advantage of UI. > Just when will opponents know to ask for redress when the player does > not overbid their values? How does one ever know? If you do not know an opponent's style you always have to ask more often. If you think that players of type X would have an LA you must call so that the TD can determine if the opponent is a player of that type. > No, it can indeed be uncanny for a player to overbid values when he > has UI available. That he often winds up in the soup is evidence > that he is not so great in assessing the inferences available. If he winds up in the soup more often than not I would take it as evidence that he is a natural overbidder. 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 Mar 2 02:42:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21FgCt10789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:42:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21Fg6t10759 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:42:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28779; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:41:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA145831311; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:41:51 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:38:34 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, michael@farebrother.cx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:38:34 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f21Fg8t10767 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: This is part of the missing stuff. The other thing is that declarer is allowed to play another card and if so LHO may play another card, by which his previous played card becomes a penalty card. And who knows the winner of the trick now? Penalty cards from both R/LHO, interesting too! Reading what happened, and using my experience, I wasn't sure that this procedure took place. ________________________________________________________________________ ___ You are right, but it was not the case. East had only 2 small Hs and declarer will not change his played card nor LHO. 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 Mar 2 02:56:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21Fu0O15762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:56:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21Ftst15726 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:55:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4sk.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.148]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA23047; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:55:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00a801c0a268$3d1775a0$9413f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Bridge Laws" References: <20010225112512.TWFV15770362.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:56:49 -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 Special cards are available for use when playing with people with visual limitations. Have you considered acquiring a set of these high visibility playing cards to accomodate these players? If this is a recurring problem it may be worthwhile. Like it or not the bridge population includes a disproportionate number of elderly people...and that means we do not see as well as we used to in many cases. The relatively modest expense might well be offset by keeping it possible for more people to continue playing. To threaten a player for an error committed because of poor eyesight appears to me to be crass and unfeeling. I beleive that at a minimum to director concerned should be reprimanded and given something akin to sensitivity training. I would feel quite differently if the revokes proceeded from failure to pay sufficient attention to the game...but to give a PP for a physical handicap appears to me to be quite reprehensible. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 6:25 AM Subject: [BLML] Blind Revokes > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 2 03:29:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21GSYX24078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 03:28:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21GSTt24074 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 03:28:29 +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 IAA06826; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:28:25 -0800 Message-Id: <200103011628.IAA06826@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Mar 2001 11:19:30 +0100." <3.0.6.32.20010301111930.0089f620@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:28:25 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Brighton case #6 involves a 'relay' 1H over a natural 1D opening. What is a > relay is clearly defined in OB14.2.2, as seen in the comments : 'forcing, > asks information, constructive'. Now we need a definition of 'constructive'. > Easy. Let's have a look at The Official Encyclopedia, which tells us : > Constructive - a description applied to a bid that suggests game prospects. > I'd suppose that, facing a normal opening bid one should hold in the > vicinity of a 10-count ? That would be a "game invitational" bid; I wouldn't think a bid has to be that strong to be considered constructive. However, I really don't know what the OB authors intended when they wrote that. Plus, I don't play in that part of the world. So all I can really do is to give some examples of what the term means over here in ACBL-land. I know of at least three common uses, but I'm sure there are others I'm missing. (1) Over one of a major, a "constructive raise" is one that shows a little more than what's usually considered a minimum raise. The "standard" is that 1H-2H or 1S-2S shows the equivalent of about 6 points, or maybe 5 ... or maybe 4 ... maybe I've done it on 3 once or twice ... However, those who play "constructive raises" show about a good 7 to a bad 10 when they raise; weaker 3-card raises go through a forcing 1NT first. I've also heard the term "constructive" applied to a Bergen raise where 1M-3C (or 3D, for some pairs) shows about 6-9 and 4-card trump support. (2) On the current ACBL convention card, a new-suit response to a simple overcall can be checked as (a) forcing (b) non-forcing (c) "non-forcing constructive". If you're playing (c), a new suit response shows a "decent" hand; partner may pass, but with a few points more than a mininum and something that isn't a misfit, he should be encouraged to bid on. A new suit response playing (b) can be made with a long suit and a relatively weak hand that doesn't want to play in partner's suit. (3) On the ACBL General Convention Chart, the following is allowed: "ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder's second call." The Mid-Chart says, that with some exceptions, "all other constructive rebids and responses are permitted." The charts don't define "constructive", but I believe the intent is to allow any conventions that help your side find the best *makable* contract---as opposed to conventions whose main purpose is to get in the opponents' way, usually by taking away their bidding space. These uses of the term "constructive" aren't consistent. Thus, for example, if you have a conventional 3-card raise of a major, it doesn't have to be a "constructive single raise" in order to be "constructive" for the purposes of the Mid-Chart. At least I believe that's the case. None of this helps me figure out what the OB clause means. -- 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 Mar 2 04:23:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21HMWW24150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 04:22:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from frigg.inter.net.il (frigg.inter.net.il [192.114.186.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f21HMPt24146 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 04:22:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-6-82.inter.net.il [213.8.6.82]) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ALK13979; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:21:31 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A9E867C.77E62B84@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:27:25 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] And again DWS References: <002001c09f20$2cdc9f80$cc62063e@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We all wish him HEALTH and writing again all his <....> here ! Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 2 08:49:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21Lm7T25675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:48:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21Lm0t25636 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:48:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21Ewlx04764 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:58:47 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:52:59 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <01022714035203.03214@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20010301074955.00b5ae30@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010301074955.00b5ae30@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01030114584703.04729@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 01 Mar 2001, Eric Landau wrote: > > >I think this is the same situation as the standard case of > >1NT-(2S)-2NT!-(P)-3C. The 2NT bidder knows with or without an alert > >that 2NT has been taken as Lebensohl or a transfer; he doesn't have to > >make up a meaning for a bid which shouldn't exist. AC's have ruled > >that the 2NT bidder can recover here (but not if the 1NT is an > >overcall). > > It is similar to the extent that in both situations the player with UI > from partner's failure to alert is obligated to base his actions on the > assumption that the bid was understood as it was intended. My point is that he is allowed to cancel this assumption when partner's action is inconsistent with the bid as made; a call is not a logical alternative if it is based on partner's having done something actually impossible. This particular N-S pair, when cue-bidding, shows only first-round controls, so when North makes a "cue-bid" showing the DA which is in South's hand, South has AI that North could not have understood the agreement. In the Lebensohl mix-up case, South has made a bid which nobody ever makes after opening 1NT. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 2 08:52:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21LqR327208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:52:27 +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 f21LqJt27166 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:52:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-69-75.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.69.75]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA22560; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:51:49 GMT Message-ID: <002101c0a299$ed5c0260$4b45063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "alain gottcheiner" References: <3.0.6.32.20010301111930.0089f620@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:51:26 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "The ancients were no great proficients" - William Chambers <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: alain gottcheiner To: Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 10:19 AM Subject: [BLML] constructive > Hello everyone, > > Brighton case #6 involves a 'relay' 1H over > a natural 1D opening. What is a relay is > clearly defined in OB14.2.2, as seen in the > comments : 'forcing, asks information, > constructive'. Now we need a definition of > 'constructive'. Easy. Let's have a look at > The Official Encyclopedia, which tells us : > Constructive - a description applied to a > bid that suggests game prospects. I'd > suppose that, facing a normal opening bid > one should hold in the vicinity of a 10-count ? > +=+ This needs to be left to the authors of the OB. David came home today. I would venture an opinion that to be 'constructive' the relay should aim to find a contract for his side, believing it likely to be his side's hand, but the contract aimed for could perhaps be short of game level. ~ 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 Mar 2 09:18:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21MIFE06449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 09:18:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21MIAt06423 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 09:18:10 +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 JAA17296 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 09:21:39 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 02 Mar 2001 09:11:09 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:27:06 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 02/03/2001 09:15:58 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Slightly off-topic definitional quibble. Alain quoted: >What is a relay is clearly defined in OB14.2.2, >as seen in the comments : 'forcing, asks >information, constructive'. I play a common convention, where my 2C overcall after an oppo's 1NT opening shows an unspecified one-suited hand. I describe my pard's weak and artificial 2D response as a *non-forcing relay*. Am I oxymoronic, or is OB14.2.2 Humpty-Dumpty? 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 Mar 2 09:32:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21MWYD11551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 09:32:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21MWTt11525 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 09:32:29 +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 f21MWQn82695 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:32:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010301172339.00ab3a70@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 Mar 2001 17:32:02 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) In-Reply-To: <01030114584703.04729@psa836> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010301074955.00b5ae30@127.0.0.1> <01022714035203.03214@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20010301074955.00b5ae30@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 09:52 AM 3/1/01, David wrote: >On Thu, 01 Mar 2001, Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >I think this is the same situation as the standard case of > > >1NT-(2S)-2NT!-(P)-3C. The 2NT bidder knows with or without an alert > > >that 2NT has been taken as Lebensohl or a transfer; he doesn't have to > > >make up a meaning for a bid which shouldn't exist. AC's have ruled > > >that the 2NT bidder can recover here (but not if the 1NT is an > > >overcall). > > > > It is similar to the extent that in both situations the player with UI > > from partner's failure to alert is obligated to base his actions on > the > > assumption that the bid was understood as it was intended. > >My point is that he is allowed to cancel this assumption when partner's >action is inconsistent with the bid as made; a call is not a logical >alternative if it is based on partner's having done something actually >impossible. This particular N-S pair, when cue-bidding, shows only >first-round controls, so when North makes a "cue-bid" showing the DA >which is in South's hand, South has AI that North could not have >understood the agreement. In the Lebensohl mix-up case, South >has made a bid which nobody ever makes after opening 1NT. Point taken, but not relevant to the ruling in the case at hand, where, if we allow that North has made an "impossible" call and therefore South is permitted to assume that North has misbid, he will arrive at the same contract whether he makes this assumption or not. My point was that, if we do not allow that North has made an impossible call, we must adjudicate on the presumption that South must assume that North has bid correctly, i.e. that he has not failed to understand South's call, but rather has failed to alert it. The TD in the original case seems to have adjudicated on the presumption that South must assume either that he has failed to understand South's call or that he has failed to alert it, whichever leads to the worse result. 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 Mar 2 09:43:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21Mgxa12039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 09:42:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21Mgrt12035 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 09:42:54 +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 f21MgpW41762 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:42:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010301173404.00ab5d40@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 Mar 2001 17:42:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-Reply-To: <008701c0a263$5c6d41a0$9413f7a5@james> References: <3.0.6.32.20010226094315.00796e10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000901c0a041$166351a0$3d1f7bd5@dodona> <4.3.2.7.1.20010227080002.00b44920@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:21 AM 3/1/01, Craig wrote: >Why? A better and more consisten rule would be to play the >highest card first always in the absence of a stated >order...just as one does in the ACBL rule situation cited. This >leads to playong off A, K, Q, J and THEN 3 which is how anyone >would normally play them unless showboating. Insisting that an >unusual or absurd order of play is dictated will discourage >claims and slow the game >needlessly...and could lead to many hurt feelings. I cannot >imagine a club player who would not be offended by such a silly >rule when it was his ox that was being gored. > I agree that clear rules are desireable...but we should >make them conform to common sense whereever possible. > >Craig > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > 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. Because while it might feel "natural" to play SA first from AKQJ/3/-/- when you believe they're all good, there's nothing "natural-feeling" about playing H7 first from 6543/7/-/- when you believe they're all good, when the order of previous play may have made the play of the H7 as "unnatural" as the play of the H3 in the first case -- what if the claimer tells you that he "knows" the spades are good because both opponents have already shown out, whereas he only "thinks" the heart is good because he believes the other 12 have been played? I don't want to legislate a rule to which we immediately have to start legislating exceptions, nor do I want to have to find the line between a discrepancy large enough to make the play of one suit rather than another "natural" and one small enough not to. 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 Mar 2 09:57:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f21MujB12103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 09:56:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f21Mudt12099 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 09:56:40 +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 f21Mubn84306 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:56:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010301174854.00b57100@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 Mar 2001 17:56:14 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive In-Reply-To: <200103011628.IAA06826@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 Adam is quite right; "constructive" is one of those words that gets used to mean whatever people want it to mean at the moment. At 11:28 AM 3/1/01, Adam wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > Brighton case #6 involves a 'relay' 1H over a natural 1D opening. > What is a > > relay is clearly defined in OB14.2.2, as seen in the comments : > 'forcing, > > asks information, constructive'. Now we need a definition of > 'constructive'. > > Easy. Let's have a look at The Official Encyclopedia, which tells us : > > Constructive - a description applied to a bid that suggests game > prospects. > > I'd suppose that, facing a normal opening bid one should hold in the > > vicinity of a 10-count ? > >That would be a "game invitational" bid; I wouldn't think a bid has to >be that strong to be considered constructive. However, I really don't >know what the OB authors intended when they wrote that. Plus, I don't >play in that part of the world. So all I can really do is to give >some examples of what the term means over here in ACBL-land. I know >of at least three common uses, but I'm sure there are others I'm >missing. Definition #1: Showing game-invitational values. >(1) Over one of a major, a "constructive raise" is one that shows a > little more than what's usually considered a minimum raise. The > "standard" is that 1H-2H or 1S-2S shows the equivalent of about 6 > points, or maybe 5 ... or maybe 4 ... maybe I've done it on 3 once > or twice ... However, those who play "constructive raises" show > about a good 7 to a bad 10 when they raise; weaker 3-card raises > go through a forcing 1NT first. > > I've also heard the term "constructive" applied to a Bergen raise > where 1M-3C (or 3D, for some pairs) shows about 6-9 and 4-card > trump support. Definition #2: Showing more strength than would be shown by some alternative sequence ending with the same bid. >(2) On the current ACBL convention card, a new-suit response to a > simple overcall can be checked as (a) forcing (b) non-forcing (c) > "non-forcing constructive". If you're playing (c), a new suit > response shows a "decent" hand; partner may pass, but with a few > points more than a mininum and something that isn't a misfit, he > should be encouraged to bid on. A new suit response playing (b) > can be made with a long suit and a relatively weak hand that > doesn't want to play in partner's suit. Definition #3: Showing more strength than would a sign-off sequence (whether or not such a sequence exists, therefore not a subcase of #2). >(3) On the ACBL General Convention Chart, the following is allowed: > "ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder's second > call." The Mid-Chart says, that with some exceptions, "all other > constructive rebids and responses are permitted." The charts > don't define "constructive", but I believe the intent is to allow > any conventions that help your side find the best *makable* > contract---as opposed to conventions whose main purpose is to get > in the opponents' way, usually by taking away their bidding > space. Definition #4: Opposite of "destructive" (whatever that means). >These uses of the term "constructive" aren't consistent. Thus, for >example, if you have a conventional 3-card raise of a major, it >doesn't have to be a "constructive single raise" in order to be >"constructive" for the purposes of the Mid-Chart. At least I believe >that's the case. None of this helps me figure out what the OB clause >means. Indeed. 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 Mar 2 11:05:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2204gg12222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:04:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2204at12218 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:04:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt9ko.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.166.152]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA14588 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:04:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <024e01c0a2ac$e43ab060$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> Subject: [BLML] When agreements depend on their meanings but they are vague Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:08:16 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Just joined BLML. It is excellent, thanks! I live in ACBL land, but I hope these questions have general interest too. My partners and I have several agreements that depend on what the opponents have shown. For example, after we open 1 notrump (11--13) and they double, the meaning of all of our calls below 3 notrump depends on whether their double is strong or "trifling." A. If their double is strong, cheap bids are bailouts: redouble shows one long suit and 2 clubs shows clubs and another suit, a la DONT. B. If their double is conventional and not necessarily strong, systems are on, and redouble shows penalty interest. We call this kind of a double "trifling". If the double is unalerted, we presume it strong. If it is alerted as takeout, it is still strong. If is alerted and it shows one suit or clubs and major, it is trifling. You can see that we must always be on the same page as to whether the double is strong or trifling. Here are my questions: What can we do if the opponents seem vague, evasive, or self-contradictory in telling us what their double means? Or what if they say it is either strong or a one suiter---they cannot remember---good luck? Or what if something crazy or unanticipated comes along, such as strong-or-conventional, or intermediate-plus-or-conventional, or intermediate-plus-and-conventional? Assume that their convention card offers no information in the notrump section that would have helped us check this out before the round began. You can also assume that to avoid UI we make it a rule to never ask about their unalerted double and always ask about their alerted double. 1. Is the confusion we have in these cases our doing, or theirs? Or does this aspect even matter? 2. Any questions we ask could cause a UI problem, right? What kinds of questions are proper, and which are improper? There seems a danger that several questions can cost us points in subsequent rulings. What is this called---QD for Question Disruption? 3. Can we call the director and explain the problem we are having in direct langauge? I called a director in a case like this, saying only that I was unclear about what their double showed. I did not say that we need to know what their double shows before we can take our next actions. He said to me something like, "They have answered your questions the best they can, so play on." What can we say to a director? Are there any rules, provisions, or proceedures for this kind of situation? I would think the best solution would be for the director to somehow ask them the questions. 4. If I were to say after getting several vague answers to my questions to the alerter, "OK, we will just call it a strong double since pass by you is a clear possibility." That would solve the problem for us, but that would be considered illegal and their case against us for UI would be overwhelming, right? (I have witnessed strong players do this I-hereby-summarize-for-you-what-your-call-means-in-a-few-words kind of thing dozens of times after asking about an alert, so maybe I am wrong.) 5. I could also ask questions and keep asking until, finally, I get one clear answer that points one way or the other, then say "thank you" and stop. Our problem would be solved, because we would just use the last thing they said. But to me that sounds likely to be improper on our part also. Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 2 11:09:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22099E12238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:09:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f22093t12234 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:09:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2208u712475 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:08:56 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:08 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) 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: <001301c0a25f$5ac49780$f53d7bd5@pacific> Grattan wrote: > +=+ The prescription approved by the WBF > Executive Council for 'logical alternative' > refers to the class of players in question > and the partnership methods. There is no > suggestion that the style of the individual > player is taken into account. The judgement > is made by reference to the probable > actions of other players of the same class, > the style of the individual concerned not > being a germane issue: he has to live with > what his peers would do. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Where exactly do class and method begin and style end (or vice-versa)? Is a player who routinely overvalues hands the same class as a player who routinely undervalues? To me class means "style and ability". What concerns me most is that you seem to be suggesting that I can avoid making a suggested bid because my "peers" would do so. EG vul against not the bidding goes. Pickup Pard - fast disinterested pass. RHO - Pass I have a goodish 11 count and would normally open a 12-14 NT but knowing LHO has a big hand to double with I would be delighted to pass. I know most players of my approximate standard would do so absent the UI. Since the WBF guidelines apparently say that 1NT is not an LA it's OK for me to pass! This feels very wrong. 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 Mar 2 12:29:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f221T1J13475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:29:01 +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 (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f221Sst13430 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:28:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.146]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:29:16 -0800 Message-ID: <016401c0a2b8$1ca17780$929c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:27:27 -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: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Herman De Wael'" > > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > From: "Kooijman, A." < > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion this is ........ (words fail me). It seems inspired by > > > L12C3, as it certainly does not accord with L12C2. Thank > > goodness L12C3 > > > has been rejected by the ACBL. > > > > > > This is really so very simple. N/S could not have avoided > > damage, so they > > > get full redress, not partial redress, +170. Had they been > > easily able to > > > beat 3D for +200 without the revoke, no damage, no redress, > > -110. In any > > > case -170 for E/W. > > > > > > > Sorry Marv, no need to go sounding off against L12C3 in > > front of the Chairman of the WBFLC, just because you believe > > this is too complex. > > > I don't mind strong opinions, I have some myself. But they better are right. > > > Marv's quote: 'as it certainly does not accord with L12C2'. > > As I tried to explain before: in my (strong) opinion it does fit into L12C2 > and Grattan agrees with that. The discussion would get an appreciated > quality input if Marv explains why he thinks it does not fit. Yes you need a > more subtle definition and treatment of damage, but we got there > in Lille. > While admiring the logic of Ton's opinion on this matter, I cannot accept a logic that would put such convoluted determinations in the hands of the TDs I know hereabouts. If the typical club TD can't handle the reasoning required, I don't want it to become the norm. Anyway, the "most favorable result" per L12C2 is A result, one result, not a blend of two or more results. Let L12C3 be used for such blending, if it is available. 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 Mar 2 14:08:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22373p09813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:07:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2236tt09774 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:06:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Yfu2-000Or0-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 03:06:48 +0000 Message-ID: <8T8FGeCvhwn6EwPo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 02:41:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] DWS References: <000401c0a0cf$832fdb80$1e44063e@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000401c0a0cf$832fdb80$1e44063e@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott================================= >"Patience is the best medicine" - John Florio. > -=- >+=+ >David Stevenson is likely to remain in Arrowe >Park Hospital for another week. The Barium >has shown up something and the medics are >to explore further. Bronchoscopy probable. >He has been told "at worst it may mean an >operation but there are fair chances it won't >come to that." David wants to feel in touch with >people. I have promised to print out and send to >him any emails. His address is 'Ward 36, >Arrowe Park Hospital, Arrowe Park Road, >Wirral, CH49 5PE'. >[Phone on the ward: 0151 604 7031.] Hi! I was only in hospital eight days this time. It was potentially serious, and, unfortunately, I am not definitely clear. But, they think I shall be all right without surgery. There are still a few tests to be done. They finally told me that I would be going home on Friday - probably. So when a nurse told me during Thursday afternoon that they heard I could go I was out of there before they could change their mind! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 2 14:56:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f223uRj21069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:56:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f223uLt21034 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:56:22 +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 OAA26039 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:59:52 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 02 Mar 2001 14:49:22 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Cats! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:53:27 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 02/03/2001 02:54:10 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk To err is human, to purr is feline. -- Robert Byrne The smallest feline is a masterpiece. -- Leonardo Da Vinci If cats could talk, they wouldn't. -- Nan Porter Every life should have nine cats. -- Anonymous Dogs eat. Cats dine. -- Ann Taylor If man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man but deteriorate the cat. -- Mark Twain A cat is there when you call her -- if she doesn't have something better to do. -- Bill Adler -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 2 19:40:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f228dqK24805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:39:52 +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 (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f228dit24768 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:39:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-61-179.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.61.179]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA11625 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:39:13 GMT Message-ID: <001901c0a2f4$5e6e9800$b33d7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:38:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "The ancients were no great proficients" - William Chambers <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 10:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive > I play a common convention, where my 2C overcall > after an oppo's 1NT opening shows an unspecified > one-suited hand. > > I describe my pard's weak and artificial 2D > response as a *non-forcing relay*. > > Am I oxymoronic, or is OB14.2.2 Humpty-Dumpty? > +=+ At level 4 'any defence to 1nt is allowed' - so the relay question is immaterial. Below level four your conventional defence with no specified anchor suit does not appear to be allowed. [See OB 14.10 and 12.13/13.7] ~ 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 Mar 2 20:05:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22959V03796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:05:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f22951t03753 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:05:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA19650; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:01:04 +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 KAA01587; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:04:40 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010302100710.00836100@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 Mar 2001 10:07:10 +0100 To: "Jerry Fusselman" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] When agreements depend on their meanings but they are vague In-Reply-To: <024e01c0a2ac$e43ab060$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:08 1/03/01 -0600, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >Just joined BLML. It is excellent, thanks! I live in ACBL land, but I hope >these questions have general interest too. > >My partners and I have several agreements that depend on what the opponents >have shown. For example, after we open 1 notrump (11--13) and they double, >the meaning of all of our calls below 3 notrump depends on whether their >double is strong or "trifling." > >A. If their double is strong, cheap bids are bailouts: redouble shows one >long suit and 2 clubs shows clubs and another suit, a la DONT. > >B. If their double is conventional and not necessarily strong, systems are >on, and redouble shows penalty interest. We call this kind of a double >"trifling". > >If the double is unalerted, we presume it strong. If it is alerted as >takeout, it is still strong. If is alerted and it shows one suit or clubs >and major, it is trifling. You can see that we must always be on the same >page as to whether the double is strong or trifling. Here are my questions: > >What can we do if the opponents seem vague, evasive, or self-contradictory >in telling us what their double means? Or what if they say it is either >strong or a one suiter---they cannot remember---good luck? Or what if >something crazy or unanticipated comes along, such as >strong-or-conventional, or intermediate-plus-or-conventional, or >intermediate-plus-and-conventional? Assume that their convention card offers >no information in the notrump section that would have helped us check this >out before the round began. You can also assume that to avoid UI we make it >a rule to never ask about their unalerted double and always ask about their >alerted double. AG : Welcome to Jerry. This is a fairly common case. The best you could do, to avoid all UI problems (assuming there are no screens, but as useful with screens) is to have one criterion for dubious cases, and stick to it. For example, you may say that a guaranteed 12+ means strong, and if their response doesn't satisfy you, just ask 'will he always have at least 12 points ? If the answer is yes, play bailout. If it isn't, play system on. I've got the same problem vs a 1C opening. We play artificial (Truscott-like) vs artificial club. If we ask, and get the answer 'either classical or any 17-20 NT', is it to be considered as natural or artificial ? What if the answer is 'either classical or any 17-20 without 5-card major' ? We then simply ask : 'is it forcing ?'. If it is, the artificial defence is on. Little UI. Obvious demarcation line, and if they don't answer clearly that one, we call the TD. 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 Mar 2 22:13:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22BCN013157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 22:12:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f22BCFt13121 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 22:12:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.116.26] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14YnTk-0005Mp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:12:08 +0000 Message-ID: <006901c0a309$93a0dc80$1a74073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:11:46 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: > I play a common convention, where my 2C overcall > after an oppo's 1NT opening shows an unspecified > one-suited hand. > > I describe my pard's weak and artificial 2D > response as a *non-forcing relay*. > > Am I oxymoronic, or is OB14.2.2 Humpty-Dumpty? The OB defines a relay as something which asks for information; this definition is not supported by any meaning of the word "relay" in the English language, but the term has been part of common bridge parlance for a very long time, and its meaning is clear enough in context. I suppose it is possible that the information sought might be conveyed by a pass, but OB14.2.2 is simply not concerned with such types of "relay", and makes no pronouncement as to their legality or otherwise. The correct way to describe the 2D response above is: "he wishes me to pass if I have diamonds, or to bid otherwise"; this may be shortened to "pass or correct" or even "P/C" on a convention card. To describe it as a "non-forcing relay" is merely confusing. 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 Mar 2 23:18:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22CHWq04101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 23:17:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f22CHPt04058 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 23:17:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([213.105.136.243]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010302121721.UPSB283.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:17:21 +0000 Message-ID: <004801c0a2ae$5060bc20$f38869d5@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <001901c0a2f4$5e6e9800$b33d7bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:18:31 -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: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive > > Grattan Endicott <=> > "The ancients were no great proficients" > - William Chambers > <==--==> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 10:27 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive > > > > I play a common convention, where my 2C overcall > > after an oppo's 1NT opening shows an unspecified > > one-suited hand. > > > > I describe my pard's weak and artificial 2D > > response as a *non-forcing relay*. > > > > Am I oxymoronic, or is OB14.2.2 Humpty-Dumpty? > > > +=+ At level 4 'any defence to 1nt is allowed' - > so the relay question is immaterial. Below level > four your conventional defence with no specified > anchor suit does not appear to be allowed. > [See OB 14.10 and 12.13/13.7] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Except in the 4th seat where any defence is now permitted at level 3.(Aug 2000) Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 3 00:10:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22D9wK22982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 00:09:58 +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 f22D9pt22939 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 00:09:52 +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 f22D9kf64789 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:09:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010302074745.00ab31a0@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, 02 Mar 2001 08:09:24 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <016401c0a2b8$1ca17780$929c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:27 PM 3/1/01, Marvin wrote: >While admiring the logic of Ton's opinion on this matter, I cannot accept >a logic that would put such convoluted determinations in the hands of the >TDs I know hereabouts. If the typical club TD can't handle the reasoning >required, I don't want it to become the norm. Anyway, the "most favorable >result" per L12C2 is A result, one result, not a blend of two or more >results. Let L12C3 be used for such blending, if it is available. What gives TDs problems in Ton's approach isn't the computation involved; TDs do arithmetic very well. Their problems are in making the sometimes-fine distinction between "consequent" and "self-inflicted" damage. If we want to keep things simple, we should do away with this distinction, define "damage" as the difference between the result that occurred given the infraction and the result that "would" have occurred had there been no infraction, and apply L12C2 straightforwardly to determine the latter. The problem with Marv's approach is that the determination of "equity potential" is really no different from the determination of self-inflicted damage. In the original case, Marv is willing to adjust from -110 to +170 because, he says, absent the self-inflicted damage, the NOs' "potential" is only +100, so they have been deprived of their chance to avoid damage; in contrast, had they had an easy down 2, for +200, they would get no adjustment, since they could have done better than +170 and it was their own fault, not the offenders', that they failed to do so. Except that at the moment the infraction (bidding 3D) was committed, they in fact had the potential to do better than they could have absent the infraction, by doubling and then defending correctly. So why give them any adjustment? Should it depend on something like the percentage of the NOs' peers who would serious consider a double? Should the difference between a substantial adjustment and no adjustment at all rest on such a determination? No, "self-inflicted" doesn't work. And "egregiously self-inflicted" or the like would be a lot harder to determine than merely "self-inflicted". If we are to require that some such distinction be made, we will have to live with the consequence that adjusting the scores to reflect that distinction may not be so easy. 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 Mar 3 01:22:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22EL7u12451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 01:21:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f22EL0t12400 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 01:21:00 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA22180; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:15:37 +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 OAA14930; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:15:29 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010302141759.0083a890@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 Mar 2001 14:17:59 +0100 To: "Grattan Endicott" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive In-Reply-To: <001901c0a2f4$5e6e9800$b33d7bd5@dodona> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:38 2/03/01 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ At level 4 'any defence to 1nt is allowed' - >so the relay question is immaterial. AG : we aren't discussing whether this defence would be admissible, but whether, playing this defence, [1NT 2C pass] 2D should be described as a 'relay'. My answer is a firm 'no'. If you played Astro, 2D over 2C would also be nonforcing, and wouldn't be a relay either (some play 2NT as a relay), and Astro pertains to a lower level of conventions (in Belgium, Astro is C and said 2C bid is F). Since a relay is 'forcing, asking, telling nothing, and constructive', and since the 2D bid doesn't fit the 1st requirement (an neither does it fit the 4th), it isn't a relay. If you play that 1NT-2C (response) doesn't guarantee a major, but won't be made on less than invitational values, call it a relay. 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 Sat Mar 3 01:49:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22EneE22507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 01:49:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f22EnXt22466 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 01:49:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-83-250.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.83.250]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA17004 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:49:02 GMT Message-ID: <001b01c0a327$d52508c0$305f063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Fw: revoke laws. Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:47:33 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > David Stevenson has written from his > hospital bed as follows: > > Mike Amos posed a problem as to the procedure > when a defender thought he might have revoked > on a trick which has been quitted but before any > card has been played to the next trick, the > defender being unsure whether he had revoked. > > I have already explained that the Director should > examine the card led, the card played by the > defender and the rest of the defender's hand. He > should do so without exposing a card and then > either tell the players to continue since there was > no infraction or say there was a revoke and require > it to be corrected under L62A. > > Now comes the question of whether the trick > should be turned up, completely or partially, or in > such a way that only the revoking player sees it. > I have seen arguments that all cards should be > faced because anything else is impractical or > liable to create unauthorised information. There > has also been an argument that they should all > be turned face up because Law 66C gives the > Director the right to do so. > > Neither argument satisfies me. I should prefer to > see a law that requires the cards and in my view > there is one: Law 65A. When four cards are played > to a trick they are turned face down. But once one > is withdrawn to correct a revoke there only remain > three cards played to the trick. Thus Law 65A no > longer applies and the cards should be faced. > > Note that it makes more sense still to face them > once it is realised that if a card has been played by > the non-offending side after the revoke card it can > be changed under Law 62C. This could happen if > the revoker had played second to the trick, or if > declarer had led to the next trick. In fact the procedure > is a normal one once an unestablished revoke is > corrected: only the element of doubt over the revoke > made the case unusual. DWS. > > Since writing the above David has returned home. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 3 02:00:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22F09o26257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 02:00:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f22F02t26217 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 02:00:02 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA02712; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:59:47 +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 PAA01388; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:59:41 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010302160211.007d28a0@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 Mar 2001 16:02:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Re : constructive Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >At 08:27 2/03/01 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> >I play a common convention, where my 2C overcall >after an oppo's 1NT opening shows an unspecified >one-suited hand. > >I describe my pard's weak and artificial 2D >response as a *non-forcing relay*. > >>Am I oxymoronic, or is OB14.2.2 Humpty-Dumpty? > >AG : I'm afraid you are, or at least the words 'nonforcing relay' are. The >correct description for such a bid would be 'to pass or correct' , ie to >play only facing diamonds. This is not in itself a relay bid. See the >well-known case of 2D(Multi)-2M. > > 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 Mar 3 05:12:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22IBS701231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 05:11:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f22IBLt01227 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 05:11:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA00354 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:17:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103021817.NAA00354@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20010302141759.0083a890@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010302141759.0083a890@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 13:17:37 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 2 March 2001 at 14:17, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 08:38 2/03/01 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >>+=+ At level 4 'any defence to 1nt is allowed' - >>so the relay question is immaterial. > >AG : we aren't discussing whether this defence would be admissible, but >whether, playing this defence, >[1NT 2C pass] 2D should be described as a 'relay'. My answer is a firm >'no'. >If you played Astro, 2D over 2C would also be nonforcing, and wouldn't be a >relay either (some play 2NT as a relay), and Astro pertains to a lower >level of conventions (in Belgium, Astro is C and said 2C bid is F). > >Since a relay is 'forcing, asking, telling nothing, and constructive', and >since the 2D bid doesn't fit the 1st requirement (an neither does it fit >the 4th), it isn't a relay. If you play that 1NT-2C (response) doesn't >guarantee a major, but won't be made on less than invitational values, call >it a relay. I saw this set of definitions a long time back from somewhere (possibly Marvin); I use them consistently, because they work. Note that nothing here should be taken as either official or overruling anything the OB has to say about the words. Transfer: Bidder shows a suit (or a NT-ish hand) and asks partner to bid it for him. Transferer is in control of the auction. Puppet: Bidder denies certain classes of hands (but not others) and asks partner to make a specific (usually the cheapest) bid in order to allow bidder's next action to describe which of several hands he has. ("The key to Lebensohl is the 2NT "puppet" bid, forcing 3C, after which responder shows his hand as follows:...") The puppeteer is in control of the auction. Relay: Bidder makes a specific (usually the cheapest) bid, saying nothing about his hand, but asks partner to describe hers. Relayer remains in control of the auction. Minor differences, but the point is who is passing information, and when. 2H Jacoby Transfer: "I have 5 spades, but want you to play the hand." 2C Modified Cappelletti: "I have either a 2D interference bid, or a two-suiter, major and minor, or (rarely) a 3C interference. Please bid 2D so I can show which one." 2C Stayman: "You don't need to know anything about my hand for now. Tell me if you have a 4-card major." Again, unofficial, but it makes it easier to describe what I'm doing. I believe what the LCs want to regulate out of the lower levels is "relay systems", those systems designed around what Colin Ward calls "half-duplex communications", where one hand relays several times to get the information it needs to set the contract without giving away anything. The ACBL states specifically that a few relay bids in the system here and there do not make a relay system (good thing for us Stayman and Blackwood bidders). One note: I find when reading systems from Europeans, that they tend to use "relay" to mean "the cheapest bid", whether or not it actually is a relay or even if it doesn't have an artificial meaning (Example from the Piranha Club by Christer Enkvist: 2.2.9 1C-1M The opener shows the weak hand (11-13) either by a single raise or by bidding the relay bid (which is always natural!), all other actions promises 17+. This was quite a shock to my American-trained "ears". -------- How to define "constructive" is interesting. My partner suggests "If partner is limited, game is still an option facing a suitable maximum. If partner is unlimited, game is an option opposite a suitable 'king better than average' hand for his previous bidding." So after 1S in SA, a constructive bid is interested in game opposite a decent 18-count; after 2D(EHAA, 6-12, 5+D, no longer suit, any such hand)-(2H), a constructive 3D is intersted in game only opposite a great hand, whereas without the interference, an *invitational* 3D is interested in game opposite a "good" 2D opener (I hope I'm playing this right. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am not). Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 3 05:33:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22IXCE01245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 05:33:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f93.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f22IX7t01241 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 05:33:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:33:00 -0800 Received: from 172.154.8.226 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 02 Mar 2001 18:33:00 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.154.8.226] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 10:33:00 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2001 18:33:00.0599 (UTC) FILETIME=[35BD7C70:01C0A347] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >On 2 March 2001 at 14:17, alain gottcheiner wrote: > >Since a relay is 'forcing, asking, telling nothing, and constructive', >and > >since the 2D bid doesn't fit the 1st requirement (an neither does it fit > >the 4th), it isn't a relay. If you play that 1NT-2C (response) doesn't > >guarantee a major, but won't be made on less than invitational values, >call > >it a relay. We're circularly back to the definition of constructive, but I wonder how any bid can simultaneously tell nothing and be required to show either a major/values so it can be constructive.... -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 Mar 3 05:47:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22IkpS01262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 05:46:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f53.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f22Ikkt01258 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 05:46:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:46:39 -0800 Received: from 172.154.8.226 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 02 Mar 2001 18:46:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.154.8.226] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 10:46:39 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2001 18:46:39.0312 (UTC) FILETIME=[1DBB2D00:01C0A349] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Richard wrote: >The OB defines a relay as something which asks for information; this >definition is not supported by any meaning of the word "relay" in the >English language, but the term has been part of common bridge parlance >for a very long time, and its meaning is clear enough in context. A relay system does exactly what relay can mean. It relays information. Since we're dealing with jargon, its subsequent use to define one bid in a relay system (particularly the one that starts/continues the relay sequence) should not be surprizing. Also, a rather crappy American dictionary has for one of its definitions: "The act of passing along ... by stages; also : one of such stages" >I >suppose it is possible that the information sought might be conveyed by >a pass, but OB14.2.2 is simply not concerned with such types of "relay", >and makes no pronouncement as to their legality or otherwise. The >correct way to describe the 2D response above is: "he wishes me to pass >if I have diamonds, or to bid otherwise"; this may be shortened to "pass >or correct" or even "P/C" on a convention card. To describe it as a >"non-forcing relay" is merely confusing. Only because it's unnecessarily complex. We have more refined and better-understood words for this situation. But is "non-forcing relay" incorrect? While OB14.2.2 was not intended to concern itself with this situation, the wording may have inadvertently done so. I'm surprized that you, of all people, are dismissing that argument. Perhaps too restrictive, possibly relays could be defined and regulated such that partner's next action (sans interference in bidding by opponents) answers the question asked. -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 Mar 3 05:57:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22Ivd601278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 05:57:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f22IvWt01274 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 05:57:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01918; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:57:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200103021857.KAA01918@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 02 Mar 2001 13:17:37 EST." <200103021817.NAA00354@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 10:57:12 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > Transfer: Bidder shows a suit (or a NT-ish hand) and asks partner to bid > it for him. Transferer is in control of the auction. > > Puppet: Bidder denies certain classes of hands (but not others) and > asks partner to make a specific (usually the cheapest) bid in > order to allow bidder's next action to describe which of several hands > he has. ("The key to Lebensohl is the 2NT "puppet" bid, forcing 3C, > after which responder shows his hand as follows:...") The puppeteer > is in control of the auction. > > Relay: Bidder makes a specific (usually the cheapest) bid, saying > nothing about his hand, but asks partner to describe hers. Relayer > remains in control of the auction. This is helpful. I just wanted to point out that _The Bridge World_ has sometimes used "marionette" for certain similar types of bids, but I'm not sure exactly what they mean. I assume it's sort of related to a "puppet", but I don't know what the difference is between a "puppet" and a "marionette". Does anyone else know what this means? -- 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 Mar 3 05:58:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22IwG401290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 05:58:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f22IwAt01286 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 05:58:10 +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 NAA20886 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:58:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA17103 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:58:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:58:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103021858.NAA17103@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > Since a relay is 'forcing, asking, telling nothing, and constructive', and > since the 2D bid doesn't fit the 1st requirement (an neither does it fit > the 4th), it isn't a relay. If you play that 1NT-2C (response) doesn't > guarantee a major, but won't be made on less than invitational values, call > it a relay. We're now discussing semantics, not laws. I haven't checked the Orange Book, but apparently it has its own definition of "relay." That's fine for regulatory purposes within the EBU, but the original question came from Australia. It wouldn't be surprising if other authorities have their own ideas of what constitutes a "relay." The ACBL certainly has its own, very strange, idea of what a "relay system" is. In _explaining_, one needs to make clear _to the opponents_ what the call in question shows and denies. Names of conventions are not normally appropriate, and I don't think "relay" is any more helpful than any other convention name. I'll make another plug for starting out by saying whether the bid is artificial or natural (neither is precisely defined, of course, but most people have a pretty good idea what they mean) and forcing or non-forcing. Then say what the bid shows or denies. It wasn't clear to me whether the 2D bid in question was mandatory or whether it denies a good suit in advancer's hand. Does it deny diamond support, as a "pass or correct" bid normally does? Let's say advancer is not supposed to show his own suit but bids the cheapest thing he is willing to play. Then the explanation might be: "Artificial but not forcing. Shows at most two (three?) cards in diamonds; otherwise any strength or distribution." As an aside, I wouldn't expect a "relay" necessarily to promise any strength. For example, I'd call Stayman a relay whether it promises strength or not. But that's just how I use the word in, say, a discussion of bidding theory. I wouldn't use it in regulations without giving a specific definition or for explaining bids 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 Mar 3 06:08:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22J8BX01307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 06:08:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f22J7qt01303 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 06:08:00 +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 OAA14322 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:07:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA183630060; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:07:40 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:05:33 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: TR: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:05:33 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f22J86t01304 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : DuBreuil, Laval Envoyé : 1 mars, 2001 09:35 À : A.Kooijman; Laval.DUBREUIL; bridge-laws; michael Objet : RE: [BLML] Law 50 and discard signal Ton wrote: This is part of the missing stuff. The other thing is that declarer is allowed to play another card and if so LHO may play another card, by which his previous played card becomes a penalty card. And who knows the winner of the trick now? Penalty cards from both R/LHO, interesting too! Reading what happened, and using my experience, I wasn't sure that this procedure took place. ________________________________________________________________________ ___ You are right, but it was not the case. East had only 2 small Hs and declarer will not change his played card nor LHO. Laval Du Breuil -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 3 06:22:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22JLjq01386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 06:21:45 +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 f22JLdt01379 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 06:21:39 +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 OAA21842 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:21:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA17371 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:21:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:21:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103021921.OAA17371@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Michael Farebrother > The ACBL states specifically that a few relay bids in the > system here and there do not make a relay system (good thing for us > Stayman and Blackwood bidders). If you read the GCC carefully, I think you will find that an immediate Blackwood by responder followed by 5NT to check for kings is defined as a relay system and therefore is illegal. (I don't expect this rule to be enforced, but that's what the text says.) After a natural notrump opening, relay systems are allowed! So are relays that start with opening bidder's first rebid. So there's no problem with extended Stayman or asking bids by a Precision opener. For discussions of bidding theory and similar purposes, I agree with Michael's distinction between transfers, puppets, and relays. I might quibble with minor details. For example, a bid can still be a transfer even if partner is not expected or required to bid the suit shown, and while a relay doesn't say anything directly about relayer's hand, it denies hands that would bid something else and shows enough strength to initiate the relay sequence. ("Enough strength" might be zero, of course, as for Stayman as an escape.) But as I said in an earlier post, I don't think any of the terms 'transfer', 'puppet', or 'relay' is proper for giving an explanation. (We in the ACBL are mandated to use 'transfer' as an _alert_ in certain cases, but for present purposes I don't consider it an _explanation_.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 3 07:02:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22K1mJ09554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 07:01:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f22K1et09546 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 07:01:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22DCOG00613; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:12:24 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:10:36 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: adam@irvine.com References: <200103021857.KAA01918@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200103021857.KAA01918@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01030213122405.00187@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 02 Mar 2001, Adam Beneschan wrote: > This is helpful. I just wanted to point out that _The Bridge World_ > has sometimes used "marionette" for certain similar types of bids, but > I'm not sure exactly what they mean. I assume it's sort of related to > a "puppet", but I don't know what the difference is between a "puppet" > and a "marionette". Does anyone else know what this means? A marionette is a puppet which is controlled by strings held from above, usually a piece of wood which can be tilted to make the marionette dance. "Puppet", in a general context, is usually something held in or on a hand. -- 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 Mar 3 07:43:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22KhC114530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 07:43:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f22Kh4t14523 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 07:43:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.146]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:39:33 -0800 Message-ID: <006c01c0a359$54a218a0$929c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <4.3.2.7.1.20010302074745.00ab31a0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:39:08 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > The problem with Marv's approach is that the determination of "equity > potential" is really no different from the determination of > self-inflicted damage. In the original case, Marv is willing to adjust > from -110 to +170 because, he says, absent the self-inflicted damage, > the NOs' "potential" is only +100, so they have been deprived of their > chance to avoid damage; in contrast, had they had an easy down 2, for > +200, they would get no adjustment, since they could have done better > than +170 and it was their own fault, not the offenders', that they > failed to do so. Except that at the moment the infraction (bidding 3D) > was committed, they in fact had the potential to do better than they > could have absent the infraction, by doubling and then defending > correctly. So why give them any adjustment? Because failing to double and defend correctly is not "wild, gambling, or irrational," and therefore is not cause for annulment of redress. > Should it depend on > something like the percentage of the NOs' peers who would serious > consider a double? Should the difference between a substantial > adjustment and no adjustment at all rest on such a determination? No, > "self-inflicted" doesn't work. And "egregiously self-inflicted" or the > like would be a lot harder to determine than merely "self-inflicted". > > If we are to require that some such distinction be made, we will have > to live with the consequence that adjusting the scores to reflect that > distinction may not be so easy. > Adjusting the score this way is not difficult if the line is clearly drawn. It's a lot easier than determining "equity potential." The hard part is getting the WBFLC and the ACBL to agree on where that line is drawn. What sorts of errors are so gross that they can annul redress? The WBFLC said actions that are "wild, gambling, or irrational." If the TD can't decide that matter, a 3-person AC ought to have no trouble doing so (despite the ACBL AC's past difficulties). This battle was fought long ago, I believe, and the outcome was that when the NOS had a superior result in hand BECAUSE of the infraction, but threw it away due to a *gross* error (e.g, a revoke), they don't get redress. I don't think you can ever get that policy changed. I remember it being applied at my table 50 years ago, it's nothing new. Off-subject, the WBFLC reaffirmed at Lille that the OS score is adjustable even if the NOS keep the table result. The clarification was prompted, perhaps, by the ACBL NABC AC's previous belief that in such cases the OS had to be punished with a PP instead of a score adjustment. A current item of disagreement is whether an NOS gross error in the play is to be incorporated into the OS score adjustment. If the contract's denomination is the same, the declarer is the same, the error has nothing to do with the infraction, and the level of contract has nothing to do with the play, I believe the consensus is that one does not change the play of the cards when adjusting for the OS. Eric mentioned before that even weak players do good things sometimes, and should not be considered incapable of that when adjusting their scores. A corollary is that even strong players blunder sometimes, and error-free play should not be assumed for the OS. Assume good play for the NOS and poor play for the OS, without regard to their perceived abilities, when adjusting. 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 Mar 3 08:01:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22L1i215106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 08:01:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f22L1bt15098 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 08:01:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-74-187.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.74.187]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA26995; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:01:01 GMT Message-ID: <000401c0a35c$02eed860$bb4a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "alain gottcheiner" References: <3.0.6.32.20010302141759.0083a890@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:03:35 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "The ancients were no great proficients" - William Chambers <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: alain gottcheiner To: Grattan Endicott ; Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive > At 08:38 2/03/01 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >+=+ At level 4 'any defence to 1nt is allowed' - > >so the relay question is immaterial. > > AG : we aren't discussing whether this defence > would be admissible, but whether, playing this > defence, [1NT 2C pass] 2D should be described as a 'relay'. My answer is a firm 'no'. > +=+ I apologize. I thought the discussion related in some way to the definition in the EBU OB. In that publication, of course, the definition cited is only applied to responses to opening bids of one in a suit. As to whether, in some other context, the word 'relay' may be said to apply, my answer is a firm 'maybe'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 3 08:26:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22LQ6p15807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 08:26:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f22LPwt15799 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 08:25:59 +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 f22LMfT14858 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:22:45 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200103021858.NAA17103@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200103021858.NAA17103@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:23:17 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:58 PM -0500 3/2/01, Steve Willner wrote: >The ACBL certainly has its own, very strange, idea of what a "relay >system" is. Heh. I was just looking at that the other night. The GCC says "A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener's rebid." In the past, I had difficulty understanding this, and I may still have it wrong, but I *think* is means that, to be a relay *system*, there must be more than one relay in sequence, and the first bid in the sequence must be responder's first bid (or opener's, I suppose). Of course, this doesn't define "relay", but if we accept the definition Michael posted (Relay: Bidder makes a specific (usually the cheapest) bid, saying nothing about his hand, but asks partner to describe hers. Relayer remains in control of the auction.) then it seems clear: Stayman is not part of a relay system because there's only one relay; subsequent bids by the relayer are natural. RCKB with the Spiral Scan is not a relay system, even though it is a sequence of relays, because it starts (usually, anyway) after opener's rebid. Hm. Would using this method in the sequence 1S-4NT-etc. constitute a "relay system"? Maybe it's not as simple as I thought. :-) I've been reading the new book by Groetheim (sp?) and Sonntag on the Viking Precision Club. Seems that the 1C sequences aren't a "relay system" because the first relay is opener's rebid. However the sequences starting with 1D, 1H, and 1S *are* a relay system, because the first relay is responder's first bid. Have I got that right? :-) BTW, this book calls the first relay in a sequence of relays the "relay trigger". Is that a useful distinction for this discussion? I dunno. 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/AwUBOqAP4b2UW3au93vOEQIrsQCgkP82UEbGUobE4R+tVQ+MdrAw4DsAoN2R 8zBeLMyoChB3jbRPB25oaX39 =d4fP -----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 Mar 3 08:35:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22LZh116113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 08:35:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f22LZat16106 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 08:35:37 +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 f22LWQm08241 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:32:26 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200103021921.OAA17371@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200103021921.OAA17371@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:27:20 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:21 PM -0500 3/2/01, Steve Willner wrote: >If you read the GCC carefully, I think you will find that an immediate >Blackwood by responder followed by 5NT to check for kings is defined as >a relay system and therefore is illegal. (I don't expect this rule to >be enforced, but that's what the text says.) That was my take, though the example I used in another message was more complicated (Spiral Scan). >After a natural notrump opening, relay systems are allowed! So are >relays that start with opening bidder's first rebid. So there's no >problem with extended Stayman or asking bids by a Precision opener. Yup. :-) 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/AwUBOqASIr2UW3au93vOEQLPIwCgxz0Kwwz+d88LQBiu/ACFZG71vTgAoOLB 4VdcXlJ8IOZqfR7qhWdiGnDj =bO2j -----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 Mar 3 08:49:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f22Lmbl16548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 08:48:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f22LmUt16540 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 08:48:31 +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 QAA00567 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:48:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA18920 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:48:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:48:27 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103022148.QAA18920@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > The GCC says "A > sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of > one of a suit, it is started prior to opener's rebid." That's it, all right. > I *think* is means that, to be a relay *system*, there must be more > than one relay in sequence, and the first bid in the sequence must be > responder's first bid (or opener's, I suppose). Yes, I think the opening bid could count as a relay. Watch out, you who play control responses and then asking bids after a strong, artificial, 1m opening! (You are fine if your strong opening is 1NT or above, and I've not heard of 1M strong and artificial with relays following, but that would be illegal too, I think.) > Stayman is not part of a relay system because there's only one relay; > subsequent bids by the relayer are natural. Some people play "extended Stayman," where, for example, responder's 3D rebid is another relay. And many people play shape inquiries on the second round after forcing Stayman. These are *legal* in the ACBL; note reference to "opening bid of one of a _suit_." Feel free to play all the relays you want after an opening of 1NT or above. > RCKB with the Spiral Scan > is not a relay system, even though it is a sequence of relays, > because it starts (usually, anyway) after opener's rebid. Hm. Would > using this method in the sequence 1S-4NT-etc. constitute a "relay > system"? Absolutely! That was my point. But don't try to get this enforced against the LOL's (or anybody else for that matter). Relays after opening 4NT Blackwood are legal, though. > Seems that the 1C sequences aren't a "relay > system" because the first relay is opener's rebid. The 1C is a relay (if it is merely strong and artificial), but I think it's not a "relay system" if the first response is natural. But after 1C-1D (or any other artificial response), I don't think an immediate further relay by opener is allowed. *However*, it is not at all clear the ACBL will interpret their definition the same way I do. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 3 14:07:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2335MX10673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:05:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2334nt10644 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:04:51 +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 14Z2Lb-0009VI-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 03:04:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:43:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability References: <001701c09b9b$c3e254c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <001701c09b9b$c3e254c0$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 >From: "David Stevenson" >> 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. How do you equate this conclusion with L12C1 which allows you A+ in such situations? All L12C1 requires is that a player be not at fault "for the irregularity". So you would give a player A in defiance of L12C1? L88 deals with players who have a session score of more than 60%. I see no reason to try to overcome the standard ArtAS Law by reading something in L88 that is irrelevant 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 Sat Mar 3 14:07:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2335D910668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:05:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2334it10627 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:04:45 +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 14Z2LX-0009VB-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 03:04:40 +0000 Message-ID: <5ttkZCDoz+n6Ewsf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:56:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 References: <000001c09d98$fd293560$24aa883e@default> In-Reply-To: <000001c09d98$fd293560$24aa883e@default> 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 f2334ot10641 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk larry bennett writes > 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. It is difficult to put in writing, but if everyone on BLML promises to keep it a secret ........ If you really want to decide whether Pass is an LA you want to consider the player's peers. May I suggest that you want to approach a different type of player in this case: medium club players would be closer to the mark. Anyway, Nissan Rand enjoyed himself far too much at Brighton - and he was East! There is another relevant point, in my view: with a 7-5 hand players do not defend - except when polled on little pieces of paper! -- 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 Mar 3 14:07:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2335Dn10667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:05:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2334lt10634 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:04:48 +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 14Z2Lb-0009V8-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 03:04:44 +0000 Message-ID: <19onNHD9++n6EwMo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:08:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Repeated Questions References: <20010225114334.TXIW15770362.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> In-Reply-To: <20010225114334.TXIW15770362.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >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. That is just about acceptable, and is the limit. The EBU's Orange book [URL: http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec] includes the following: 3.2.2 Following a question legitimately asked, the questioner may ask a supplementary question to find out if the call has any conditional meanings. The questioning, however, must not amount to harassment. >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. I believe this to be harrassment and think the Director should have taken action - probably just a warning. Since many of you do not read RGB, perhaps you will allow me to post a relevant but funny article therefrom. I have received permission from the author, Ian Payn, to put it on my Bridgepage but have not yet done so. Eh? One evening last week I played with a Brazilian gentleman I hadn't met before. Throughout the evening he said virtually nothing: My suspicion was, and is, that his English was not good. All we agreed was Strong No- Trump, Transfers of some description and Negative Doubles. His imagination had flagged after this, and it was enough for me to be going on with for a 24 Board partnership. On about the third round, as we sat down, I volunteered the information that we played a Strong No Trump (since we were in London, England, the room default was weak, so it seemed fair to draw people's attention to our 'system' as we went around the room). The elderly lady on my right pondered this for a moment. "Is that 15-17 or 16-18?" she asked me. "Er...I don't know. We hadn't got that far. It's just strong." I replied. Had I been given a chance to draw breath, I would have asked my partner from Brazil what his preference was. I wasn't. "That's no good. You must tell me. I MUST KNOW THE RANGE!" I now asked my man. He muttered "16-18", which I repeated in a louder voice for the benefit of my opponents, who looked deaf. "Right," said the lady. "16-18." There was a brief pause, as we got our cards out of the board. My partner from Brazil was the dealer. After a lot of fidgeting and mouthing numbers, and a couple of recounts using both hands and both feet, he opened One No Trump. The elderly lady on my right turned to me, and asked in ringing tones, "How strong is that?" Lord, lead us not into temptation... -- 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 Mar 3 14:07:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2335Bd10666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:05:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2334it10625 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:04:45 +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 14Z2LX-0009V9-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 03:04:41 +0000 Message-ID: <99ilt5CVp+n6EwtR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:45:41 +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: >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. Oh, come on. In L25 we assume inadvertently means that the player did not mean to do it, and in L17D I assume but you don't that it means the player did not mean to do it. The distinction seems a little unclear 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 Sat Mar 3 14:07:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2335Eq10669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:05:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2334nt10640 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:04:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Z2Lb-0009VB-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 03:04:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:10:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Peter Newman References: <002e01c09f3a$7173ade0$98e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <002e01c09f3a$7173ade0$98e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill writes >Peter Newman of BLML became the proud father of a baby >boy last night, 7lb 11 oz, mother and baby both well. Oh good! Let us know as soon as he knows the order of the suits! >Sorry no dogs or cats but Peter's first child seemed worth a >mention to his BLML friends. Please pass on my felicitations, just in case he feels too busy to check BLML. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 3 14:07:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2335GW10670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:05:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2334it10626 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:04:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Z2LX-0009V8-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 03:04:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:32:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Too many spades ... References: <004701c09b8c$b7d09200$40c4f1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <004701c09b8c$b7d09200$40c4f1c3@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 >David, > >thank you for having given your opinion. Apparently, you are catching >up, and I hope this is a good sign ! > >table before board 5 was, by board 5, and leaves South bidding his >board 6 hand where N E and W are bidding their board 5 hands> > >>>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 ? No, I do not consider South the offending player. But that is a judgement call, and if you consider he is then you give him A-. Perhaps "partly at fault" is correct, in which case he gets A. Remember, a board was put on the table, he took the cards out, and then someone removed the board: my instinct is that the player who removed the board containing 39 cards is the main person at fault here. I believe L17D to be badly worded [as well as completely misplaced in the Law book]. When the 1997 Laws were being produced L17D was still being amended, and in my view it finished in an unfortunate state. However, despite anything therein, L12C1 tells you how to give ArtASs, and L90 allows PPs to be given as well. -- 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 Mar 3 14:07:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2335LT10672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:05:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2334it10628 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:04:45 +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 14Z2LX-0009VA-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 03:04:41 +0000 Message-ID: <+NUlB8COr+n6Ewv$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:47:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability 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> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010220165540.0084b3c0@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 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. The first job of a TD is to apply the written Laws, not to read the Scope and then try to mangle the written Laws. The law-makers have stated in the Scope their intent: it is their job, not the TD's, to make sure the Scope is followed in the subsequent 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 Sat Mar 3 14:07:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2335LV10671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:05:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2334mt10639 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:04:49 +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 14Z2Lb-0009V9-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 03:04:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:23:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 12:33 AM 2/28/01, Tony wrote: > >>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). > >This raises two questions: > >(1) Should a revoke be considered a "wild, gambling or irrational" >action? I don't think so, but the consensus of BLML seems to be >otherwise, so let's assume it should be and go on... I think a revoke is an irrational action. This has considerable importance for England and Wales, since we have decided not to go with the interpretation of "irrational, wild or gambling" but to stick with "wild or gambling" since we feel at least a possibility of the double shot should be involved before we deny redress. In other words, in England/Wales the correct ruling is NS+170 for both sides. >(2) Given (1), is -110 the correct result for N-S? It certainly isn't >"the most unfavorable result that was at all probable... had the >irregularity not occurred". Here Tony has ruled that "had the >irregularity not occurred" N-S would have played in 2S. Putting aside >the question of what to do about North's "wild, gambling or irrational" >revoke and simply applying L12C2 as written, one could justify awarding >+140/-170, although I would probably rule +140/-140 on the actual >hand. Afficianados of L12C3 might want to make the case for +140/-155! We do not assign scores such as -155, but 50% of -170 and 50% of -140, which at matchpoints can be very different. >Ah, but North has revoked, and revoking is a "wild, gambling or >irrational" action, and therefore we should not provide redress for the >"self-inflicted damage" N-S suffered as a result of the >revoke. OK. But the damage North "inflicted" on himself by his revoke >is the matchpoint difference between -110 and +100, which could be >considerably less than the matchpoint difference between -110 and +140, >and I see no justification for depriving N-S of the additional >matchpoint difference between +100 and +140, to which they appear to be >clearly entitled even if we take the harshest possible view of the revoke. > >>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? > >For a simple split score, the usual procedure is to include the N-S and >E-W scores among the other scores in the respective fields and >matchpoint the fields separately. So if the adjudicated results are >-110/-170, for example, the N-S and E-W results at any other table >which had a result between NS -110 and NS +170 would not add up to a >full board, but the total number of matchpoints awarded to each field >would not be affected. When you say the usual procedure, I think you mean the ACBL procedure. The EBU lays down that you put an average in and adjust the score manually. It is hoped that the new software on the way will have a better approach. But the main point is that how to apply these sort of things depends on the SO, and either method is legal. Consistency should be there for an SO, and it would be a good idea to have a regulation covering the possibility, as the EBU has. > Under the alternative method of L12C2, it's not >clear whether you matchpoint the other tables against average or >against the actual result obtained at the table before you >adjust. I've always assumed the latter; since common practice in the >ACBL is to adjust in total points it has never mattered to a ruling >I've had to make, but I'm curious what the list might think. > >When some portion of the normal redress is considered "self-inflicted" >and thus not to be awarded, the easiest procedure seems to be to assign >the L12C2 result (split or not) and matchpoint normally (as above if >split), then compute the N-S matchpoints for +100 and -110, take the >difference, and subtract it from the initially computed N-S result. I >interpret L12C2 as allowing this approach; it explicitly permits >adjusting in matchpoints or in total points prior to matchpointing, and >I read this as leaving room for both types of adjustments to be applied >to the same deal. The EBU has decided that when they deny redress to a side it keeps its table score. This is easiest to apply, but certainly not what is suggested by the Code of Practice. -- 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 Mar 3 15:19:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f234INO18750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 15:18:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f234IGt18744 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 15:18:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010303041928.WLWW2261674.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:19:28 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: Subject: [BLML] Misinformation and Misexplanations Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 4:18:13 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010303041928.WLWW2261674.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk These laws relate to misinformation and misexplanation. L21B1 clearly states that a failure to alert constitutes misinformation. There is no such statement in the parallel law in the play, as opposed to in the auction. L47E2. Is that ommision significant? L75D requires a player to inform the opponents of a misexplanation but does not mention a failure to alert. By definition an alert is designed to inform the opponents that an explanation may be required. Is this different emphasis intentional? It seems odd to me that it would be. But currently it seems a valid arguement that "I did not have to tell you that we failed to alert (only a failure to explain correctly)" and in fact L72B3 says that there is no obligation to draw attention to a irregularity except mistaken explanations (and not failure to alert). I think this needs tidying up. I don't like making rulings like - "I think you should have informed the opponents at the end of the auction that there was a failure to alert - the laws only say that you should do this if there is a mistaken explanation..." Of course I can ignor this and still make an adjustment based on the failure to alert but only when attention has been drawn to that. Note: I think that it is clear that "explanation" and "information" are quite different concepts which creates the confusion I have here. L21B1 and L47E2 deal with information but L75D2 deals with explanations (only a subset of information IMO). 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 Mar 4 04:56:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f23Htah12906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f23HtJt12879 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:20 +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 14ZGFK-0001tC-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:55:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 13:56:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 References: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <200102222010.MAA08741@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200102222010.MAA08741@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 >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. I make no comment on Herman's comments, but as a matter of information Herman made his comments based on what you have read, but without seeing my comments or the L&EC's comments. He had no other source of information. By the way, I should like to thank him for doing this. I asked for volunteers in a number of places, I only got two, and the other one failed to produce anything because of personal problems. I am very pleased that Herman saved everyone from only seeing my comments! -- 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 Mar 4 04:56:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f23HtjL12914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f23HtJt12878 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:20 +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 14ZGFK-0001tB-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:55:15 +0000 Message-ID: <$DFFScA0CQo6EwXn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:33:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton, better late than never References: <3.0.6.32.20010228134440.00860430@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010228134440.00860430@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 >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. One of my problems, as you can see when reading the NABC case-books, is that I rarely bother to analyse the play. I tend to take everyone's word for it. My comments on this case would have been different if I had analysed it since I believe the successful defence is likely to be found more than 50% of the time. >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. Others have pointed this out to me. Perhaps it was copied wrong. Where the L&EC made a comment [as in this case] then the hand was typed in for me. Anyway, I can assure you that 'without a 4-card major' is wrong. These are my Gold Cup team-mates [I wonder whether I am still in the Gold Cup, Britain's premier knockout: because of illness a substitute played for me last night: interestingly I knocked Mike Amos out of the Gold Cup last night on a ruling!]. They were playing this 1H in a way I believed to be illegal - and then quoting me as the authority who said they could play it! >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'. This has always been my understanding of the word constructive. In response to 1NT a constructive response is a non-forcing game try. >BTW, if 'constructive' means 'forcing', the wording of 14.2.2. would be >pleonastic. What does pleonastic mean? -- 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 Mar 4 04:56:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f23HtJp12876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 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 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 f23Ht7t12861 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:08 +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 14ZGF6-0001tA-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:55:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 13:52:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI 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 f23HtDt12867 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 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. > >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). I like this one. Having read four replies I think that no-one has really grasped the problem in full. Perhaps a better title for the Subject line would be "Count the infractions". Let us see. A1. East fails to alert West's 2S bid. Since E/W are LOLs it is not unreasonable to assume they play a 2S bid that does not need an alert. So we have UI. A2. South asks the meaning of 2S at a time when he cannot possibly be thinking of bidding. Why? The most likely reason is that he strongly suspects 2S should have been alerted and is trying to draw pd's attention to it. To be charitable, I do not mean he is doing this intentionally, but I bet it was part of his subconscious motivation. So we have illegal communication between partners. A3a. North calls the TD - why not? But instead of telling him what happened he now starts to tell him what he would have done otherwise. Unless the Director encouraged this, in which case we shoot the Director, then this is UI to pd. Sorry Tim, when you tell pd what is in your hand, that is UI to him, *whatever* the circumstances. If N/S have been damaged by an infraction they must rely on the TD to give them redress, not rely on use of UI to do so. Unlike #A2 I have no doubt this was done out of ignorance and with no desire to communicate with pd, but it is definitely UI. Ok, no infraction unless pd uses it [pedants pls note: common BLML/RGB usage of term "use UI" assumed]. TD correctly warns for UI. Note that there might be some doubt about this because we do not really know what was said, but just saying "I would have bid differently" is enough. How much easier the hand would have been if South had called the TD the moment he realised that 2S should have been alerted! A3b. South leads a spade. OK, this is the infraction - if there is one. Would South have led a spade in the absence of UI, when North has not doubled an artificial 2S? More importantly, were there LAs [HQ?] and was the spade lead suggested over an LA? Of course, this is the easy bit, it is a bog-standard UI problem, and if that was the only problem here we would disallow a spade lead in a heartbeat. A4. East shouts at North for .... Who cares, what for. This is unacceptable. North's reply sounds very reasonable. So, we have four possible infractions, and we need to deal with each one. B1a. Failure to alert is MI. It is legal to issue a PP for this, but this should be in the form of a warning, no more, unless this pair do it so often that a PP needs to be issued. B1b. As far as MI is concerned, there is also the possibility of an adjustment. Suppose nothing else happened what would we adjust to? With a spade lead nine tricks are tricky. The logic quoted for taking the diamond finesse the wrong way escapes me - the DQ is more likely to be with the short spades! Furthermore, even though it is pairs, the drop of the DQ seems a reasonable shot. Jan Peter may say this LOL would make eleven tricks but how escapes me! There do not seem enough entries to the West hand to take the club finesse, enjoy the last club and take the diamond finesse the right way. If I was playing the hand, knowing the spades were North, I would finesse into the diamond queen: I think the odds support it! However, I doubt this declarer would. The winning line, is to take the second spade, blocking the suit, and run the DJ, making ten tricks. Let us say that if North had doubled 2S the result on the board would be 50% 3NT-1 + 40% 3NT= + 10% 3NT+1 [Editor's note: with the weighted score idea growing I am trying to standardise a format agreed with Herman De Wael at Maastricht by which mixed scores are always shown in order of size of the actual score, highest N/S score first. Thus NS+100 precedes NS+50, whatever the percentages.] So I would adjust for MI on this basis, wait a minute, no I would not, the offending side did worse than this on the hand! No damage! B2. Communicating with partner through the "pro" question is again suitable for a warning. Note that as this example shows the soi-disant "pro" question is often used in other partnerships where one player thinks he knows what is going on and his partner does not. As with #B1a I only issue a PP if this pair have made a habit of this offence. B3a. As explained above there might be some doubt as to what North said. But assuming he did say something unfortunate, I warn him, as well! B3b. OK, it is a UI problem, and we disallow the spade lead. On a heart lead, nine tricks are normal, getting the diamond guess wrong, as before, because of entry considerations. Actually a spade trick will also appear often, so let us say that the result will be 50% 3NT= + 50% 3NT+1 So perhaps we should adjust this way for E/W, since they are the NOs under #3b. But what about #1b then? Bear with me for a bit: I shall return later - see #C2. B4. We have to control discipline. It is my view, the view of the L&ECs of the EBU and the WBU, the view of the people who started Zero tolerance, and many people's view that the best way to do it is by Directors using their disciplinary powers. So a DP would be in order. However, like the other penalties, this should be a warning unless it is a common occurrence for the player concerned. Phew! Now, what do we actually do? Let us consider penalties, then adjustments. C1. I warn East for not alerting the 2S bid [#B1a], and for shouting at her opponent [#B4]. I warn South for the "pro" question [#B2]. I warn North for making it clear what he would have done [#B3a]. I congratulate West for doing nothing wrong! :)) C2. As far as adjustments are concerned I have to consider #B1b, MI, with N/S the NOs and #B3b, UI, with E/W the NOs. I shall consider each side separately. To be honest, we do not have a lot of guidance for multiple infractions. Some people think we should deal with them in order. This has always seemed correct to me where the same side is the offenders, but not necessarily otherwise. Perhaps we should go back to first principles. We are trying to redress damage: what would have happened, in our view, if there had been no infractions, giving the benefit of doubt to the NOs, as usual. If East alerts, North may double - no, it is not certain, despite what he said - and South would lead a spade, or maybe a heart with no double. If there is a double, the UI becomes irrelevant since the spade lead is automatic, and then the result on the board would be 50% 3NT-1 + 40% 3NT= + 10% 3NT+1 However, I think there may not be a double [only S A7532, remember]. Without it, the UI ruling comes in to play: we disallow a spade lead, and then the result would be 50% 3NT= + 50% 3NT+1 If we think North will double three times in five we get 30%+ 0%=30% 3NT-1 + 24%+20%=44% 3NT= + 6%+20%=26% 3NT+1 Say 30% 3NT-1 + 45% 3NT= + 25% 3NT+1 What about giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOs? I did that in the original figures. Of course, it would be easy to change the percentages, but this seems a reasonable approach overall. Have I forgotten anything? Well, I believe this was played in a place where L12C3 was enabled, but let us consider the effects if it was not. D1. The warnings are unchanged. I warn East twice, South and North. D2. My view of the first infraction was that with a double the likely results were 50% 3NT-1 + 40% 3NT= + 10% 3NT+1 and without 50% 3NT= + 50% 3NT+1 For E/W, as Os originally, we give them the worst score at all probable [L12C2] which is 3NT-1 assuming a double. Since the double is assumed the UI does not come in to play. For N/S, as NOs originally, we give them the best score that was likely without the infraction, and the same logic comes in to play and we get 3NT-1 assuming a double. This does not automatically feel right. N/S have offended in the use of UI but nothing happens as a result. However, adjustments are not designed to punish, so the adjustment seems fair. How about a PP to warn South of the use of UI? I know he is inexperienced, but it was so blatant ["I would have done something over 2S" "Oh, look, I have led my tripleton, aren't I clever"] and the Director warned against it. Yes, that is the answer. 10% of a top and explain why gently. After all, he is getting a *very* good score. It was not necessary in #C2 because part of the adjustment was based on disallowing the spade lead, and South lost some of his good table score, but it is necessary in a L12C2 jurisdiction. OK, let's summarise. If L12C3 is enabled, warn North, South and East as a PP, and East as a DP, and adjust for both sides to 30% 3NT-1 + 45% 3NT= + 25% 3NT+1 If L12C3 is not enabled, warn North, South and East as a PP, and East as a DP, give South a 10% of a top PP, and let the table result [3NT-1] stand. Personally, I think this is one of the most interesting problems ever seen on BLML. OK, have your fun. Who thinks I am out of my tree? -- 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 Mar 4 04:56:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f23Htvq12924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f23HtZt12907 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:36 +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 14ZGFb-0001El-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:55:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:50:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] When agreements depend on their meanings but they are vague References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <024e01c0a2ac$e43ab060$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <024e01c0a2ac$e43ab060$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman writes > >Just joined BLML. It is excellent, thanks! I live in ACBL land, but I hope >these questions have general interest too. Hi Jerry. Nice to see you. Do you have any cats [or d*gs]? >My partners and I have several agreements that depend on what the opponents >have shown. For example, after we open 1 notrump (11--13) and they double, >the meaning of all of our calls below 3 notrump depends on whether their >double is strong or "trifling." > >A. If their double is strong, cheap bids are bailouts: redouble shows one >long suit and 2 clubs shows clubs and another suit, a la DONT. > >B. If their double is conventional and not necessarily strong, systems are >on, and redouble shows penalty interest. We call this kind of a double >"trifling". > >If the double is unalerted, we presume it strong. If it is alerted as >takeout, it is still strong. If is alerted and it shows one suit or clubs >and major, it is trifling. You can see that we must always be on the same >page as to whether the double is strong or trifling. Here are my questions: > >What can we do if the opponents seem vague, evasive, or self-contradictory >in telling us what their double means? Or what if they say it is either >strong or a one suiter---they cannot remember---good luck? Or what if >something crazy or unanticipated comes along, such as >strong-or-conventional, or intermediate-plus-or-conventional, or >intermediate-plus-and-conventional? Assume that their convention card offers >no information in the notrump section that would have helped us check this >out before the round began. You can also assume that to avoid UI we make it >a rule to never ask about their unalerted double and always ask about their >alerted double. If you get a complete answer and then have a problem it is your fault because you should have a simple rule to cover such cases. If you get an incomplete or evasive answer then you should call the Director. My experience of the last few months has made one thing crystal clear to me: the most important time to call a Director *immediately* is in potential or actual misinformation cases. There is much he can do. >1. Is the confusion we have in these cases our doing, or theirs? Or does >this aspect even matter? It sounds a bit of both. You need a simple rule to cover complex but correct answers. If the correct answer is intermediate-plus and conventional then when you get that answer you should know what to do. If you get the answer that he is not sure then you call the director. >2. Any questions we ask could cause a UI problem, right? What kinds of >questions are proper, and which are improper? There seems a danger that >several questions can cost us points in subsequent rulings. What is this >called---QD for Question Disruption? You ask how they play it. According to the EBU [I know the EBU has no jurisdiction in the ACBL but it seems sensible] supplementary questions are permitted but must not amount to harrassment. In effect i think you can ask them to explain further, but after that you need help. >3. Can we call the director and explain the problem we are having in direct >langauge? I called a director in a case like this, saying only that I was >unclear about what their double showed. I did not say that we need to know >what their double shows before we can take our next actions. He said to me >something like, "They have answered your questions the best they can, so >play on." What can we say to a director? Are there any rules, provisions, or >proceedures for this kind of situation? I would think the best solution >would be for the director to somehow ask them the questions. You have had the wrong advice from the Director. Admittedly it is a difficult area but I would advise you to keep calling the Director in future even if some of them may not be helpful. >4. If I were to say after getting several vague answers to my questions to >the alerter, "OK, we will just call it a strong double since pass by you >is a clear possibility." That would solve the problem for us, but that would >be considered illegal and their case against us for UI would be >overwhelming, right? You must not say that. That is unethical because you are passing information to your partner. A comment of this is a very serious breach of the rules and should get you a heavy penalty. > (I have witnessed strong players do this >I-hereby-summarize-for-you-what-your-call-means-in-a-few-words kind of thing >dozens of times after asking about an alert, so maybe I am wrong.) It depends on the circumstances. In the situation you are talking about it is absolutely forbidden because you are saying it for your partner's benefit. >5. I could also ask questions and keep asking until, finally, I get one >clear answer that points one way or the other, then say "thank you" and >stop. Our problem would be solved, because we would just use the last thing >they said. But to me that sounds likely to be improper on our part also. Certainly, continual questions amount to harrassment. Ask a question or two , have a simple rule, and if the oppos are confused, call the Director for help. -- 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 Mar 4 04:56:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f23Ht8j12859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f23Hsxt12845 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ZGF1-0001El-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:54:55 +0000 Message-ID: <1usXJGATONo6EwFx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 11:20:51 +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: 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: > > > >> 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? No, that is considered communicating with partner and will be dealt with a breach of L61B, ie the infamous three-trick revoke penalty will kick in. >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? Probably, but try convincing a highly sceptical Director you really needed to think and were not leaving it there just to wake pd up. -- 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 Mar 4 04:56:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f23HtnC12919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f23HtPt12893 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:26 +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 14ZGFQ-0001t9-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:55:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 16:04:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >Alain quoted: >>What is a relay is clearly defined in OB14.2.2, >>as seen in the comments : 'forcing, asks >>information, constructive'. >I play a common convention, where my 2C overcall >after an oppo's 1NT opening shows an unspecified >one-suited hand. > >I describe my pard's weak and artificial 2D >response as a *non-forcing relay*. > >Am I oxymoronic, or is OB14.2.2 Humpty-Dumpty? We decide what is permitted, add a name for ease of reference, and then describe. OK, the description has proved inadequate, but that i snot the point. We allow "relay responses", but only if they are as described. Your non-forcing relay would not be permitted under this clause. If we do not put that it is forcing someone would come along with a non-forcing relay and we would have an argument. However, the definition is a limited one for that particular purpose and not as a general statement. --------- Michael Farebrother writes >I saw this set of definitions a long time back from somewhere (possibly >Marvin); I use them consistently, because they work. Note that nothing >here should be taken as either official or overruling anything the OB >has to say about the words. > >Transfer: Bidder shows a suit (or a NT-ish hand) and asks partner to bid >it for him. Transferer is in control of the auction. > >Puppet: Bidder denies certain classes of hands (but not others) and >asks partner to make a specific (usually the cheapest) bid in >order to allow bidder's next action to describe which of several hands >he has. ("The key to Lebensohl is the 2NT "puppet" bid, forcing 3C, >after which responder shows his hand as follows:...") The puppeteer >is in control of the auction. > >Relay: Bidder makes a specific (usually the cheapest) bid, saying >nothing about his hand, but asks partner to describe hers. Relayer >remains in control of the auction. The definitions from the Orange book are: Puppet bid An artificial bid, requesting partner to bid the next denomination up, but not necessarily showing that suit (compare with definition of Transfer bid). Relay bid A response made to allow partner to bid again and indicating nothing about the denomination bid. Transfer bid An artificial bid, showing length in a specific suit (often the next suit up) and usually expecting partner to bid that suit. Perhaps a definition of constructive would be helpful in the OB 2003! --------- Todd Zimnoch writes >Only because it's unnecessarily complex. We have more refined and >better-understood words for this situation. But is "non-forcing relay" >incorrect? While OB14.2.2 was not intended to concern itself with this >situation, the wording may have inadvertently done so. I'm surprized that >you, of all people, are dismissing that argument. As above, might I remind that this is a limited definition for one purpose, namely to show a set of permitted responses to 1-suit at Level 4. If the definition was meant more generally it would appear in the Glossary: in fact there is a definition as shown above. -- 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 Mar 4 04:56:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f23HtX212900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f23HtFt12872 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:16 +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 14ZGFK-0001El-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:55:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:52:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton, better late than never References: <3.0.6.32.20010228134440.00860430@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010228134440.00860430@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 >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. Some general comments on this Appeals booklet, one of which is relevant to Alain's comment above. First, Nick Doe and I have received about forty comments, none of them bad. I have answered all the comments on actual hands sent to me, and passed the comments to Herman. I have also answered comments on the layout and methodology. Comments on the idea, whether there should be paper copies, and whether there should be repeats are better sent to Nick Doe , the L&EC Secretary, who will report to the L&EC. Most people who commented seem to think it should be repeated: the more people tell Nick so, the more likely the EBU will do so. Second, we do not have scribes. Basically, the source of the information is the Appeals forms, and we are in the hands of the TDs and AC Chairmen who fill them in. One or two are a bit sparse! Third, it was deliberate policy not to give players' names, and I do not think this will be changed. The feeling was that self- aggrandisement might lead to more appeals, with no upside to such naming. However, unlike most other publications you will notice we name the TDs. In Maastricht Kojak told me we should not name the TDs while the popular conception was that the TD took the decision. Of course, no competent TD ever takes a decision single-handed but we wanted to name the person who takes the facts and then presents them. We find very curious the idea elsewhere that any other TD should present the facts apart from the table TD. Fourth, there were some mistakes in suit symbols in Herman's comments. he used GillSansBridge which I do not have. Thus his comments contained suit symbols that appeared to me as [ ] { } and I translated some of them wrong! Fifth, I did very little editing. In Maastricht, Herman and I had different views as to how far you should take TD's statements unchanged and how far you should edit. This follows my views that you should not edit but I realise I took it too far. For example, where an explanation of a convention merely named the convention it has been suggested that I should have added an explanation. The Lebensohl double is a double in response to 1NT which shows the values for a raise to 2NT, because 2NT has become Lebensohl. Similarly, some people did not understand things like Benjamin 2C. If I repeat this I shall edit rather more next time. Sixth, because it was an official publication, I only gave the eddress of the L&EC Secretary. We soon realised this was a mistake! Comments on whether to repeat and so on should go to him, of course, but if you want to discuss any of the actual cases please send them to me not him! -- 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 Mar 4 04:56:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f23HtxU12926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:59 +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-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 f23HtTt12897 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:30 +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 14ZGFQ-0001tA-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:55:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 16:39:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows References: <01c09c49$3ced3c60$0100007f@localhost> <002f01c09c58$53b99420$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <002f01c09c58$53b99420$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 >> Bidding goes >> >> W N E S >> ============= >> <> <> <> 1N >> 2C 2N P 3C >> P P X P >> 3S P 4C P >> 4S 5C X end >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? Doubles in competitive situations in England tend not to be for penalties. -- 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 Mar 4 04:56:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f23HtCT12864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f23Ht3t12853 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 04:55:03 +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 14ZGF3-0001t9-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:54:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 13:00:25 +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> <008801c09d08$8ec92520$0613f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: <008801c09d08$8ec92520$0613f7a5@james> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior writes >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. Novices may be taught to do the right thing, though it is unusual for a member of Zone 2 on BLML or RGB to defend the average Zone 2 player's observance of rules. But many many players used to ask "No spades, partner?" only when it was a surprise, ie it meant "goodness, partner, look how many spades declarer has." -- 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 Mar 4 06:43:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f23Jfa026299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 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 hotmail.com (oe47.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f23JfRt26249 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 06:41:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 11:41:19 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.44.128.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 13:41:00 -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: 03 Mar 2001 19:41:19.0813 (UTC) FILETIME=[EB79A750:01C0A419] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, Glad you are in good spirits. Hope you will soon be able to send your physicians packing. You have certainly demonstrated there was a lot of meat here. Perhaps I will add one small thing. What is the effect in assessing damage if the final contract is 2SXX [namely the contracts that NS will run to]? I once bid 6C to make knowing a 4-2 fit; it did play nicely and in comparison 8 or 9 tricks in a 3-2 or 4-2 seems like a piece of cake. ok, a second small thing. In 12 years of playing an artificial 2S response not requiring a fair hand I do not recollect once that it was doubled, and here 2S promises a pretty fair hand. roger pewick I am sorry, I have thought of a big thing. It does seem out of proportion that such an involved remedy should needed for ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 7:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI 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. > >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). I like this one. Having read four replies I think that no-one has really grasped the problem in full. Perhaps a better title for the Subject line would be "Count the infractions". Let us see. A1. East fails to alert West's 2S bid. Since E/W are LOLs it is not unreasonable to assume they play a 2S bid that does not need an alert. So we have UI. A2. South asks the meaning of 2S at a time when he cannot possibly be thinking of bidding. Why? The most likely reason is that he strongly suspects 2S should have been alerted and is trying to draw pd's attention to it. To be charitable, I do not mean he is doing this intentionally, but I bet it was part of his subconscious motivation. So we have illegal communication between partners. A3a. North calls the TD - why not? But instead of telling him what happened he now starts to tell him what he would have done otherwise. Unless the Director encouraged this, in which case we shoot the Director, then this is UI to pd. Sorry Tim, when you tell pd what is in your hand, that is UI to him, *whatever* the circumstances. If N/S have been damaged by an infraction they must rely on the TD to give them redress, not rely on use of UI to do so. Unlike #A2 I have no doubt this was done out of ignorance and with no desire to communicate with pd, but it is definitely UI. Ok, no infraction unless pd uses it [pedants pls note: common BLML/RGB usage of term "use UI" assumed]. TD correctly warns for UI. Note that there might be some doubt about this because we do not really know what was said, but just saying "I would have bid differently" is enough. How much easier the hand would have been if South had called the TD the moment he realised that 2S should have been alerted! A3b. South leads a spade. OK, this is the infraction - if there is one. Would South have led a spade in the absence of UI, when North has not doubled an artificial 2S? More importantly, were there LAs [HQ?] and was the spade lead suggested over an LA? Of course, this is the easy bit, it is a bog-standard UI problem, and if that was the only problem here we would disallow a spade lead in a heartbeat. A4. East shouts at North for .... Who cares, what for. This is unacceptable. North's reply sounds very reasonable. So, we have four possible infractions, and we need to deal with each one. B1a. Failure to alert is MI. It is legal to issue a PP for this, but this should be in the form of a warning, no more, unless this pair do it so often that a PP needs to be issued. B1b. As far as MI is concerned, there is also the possibility of an adjustment. Suppose nothing else happened what would we adjust to? With a spade lead nine tricks are tricky. The logic quoted for taking the diamond finesse the wrong way escapes me - the DQ is more likely to be with the short spades! Furthermore, even though it is pairs, the drop of the DQ seems a reasonable shot. Jan Peter may say this LOL would make eleven tricks but how escapes me! There do not seem enough entries to the West hand to take the club finesse, enjoy the last club and take the diamond finesse the right way. If I was playing the hand, knowing the spades were North, I would finesse into the diamond queen: I think the odds support it! However, I doubt this declarer would. The winning line, is to take the second spade, blocking the suit, and run the DJ, making ten tricks. Let us say that if North had doubled 2S the result on the board would be 50% 3NT-1 + 40% 3NT= + 10% 3NT+1 [Editor's note: with the weighted score idea growing I am trying to standardise a format agreed with Herman De Wael at Maastricht by which mixed scores are always shown in order of size of the actual score, highest N/S score first. Thus NS+100 precedes NS+50, whatever the percentages.] So I would adjust for MI on this basis, wait a minute, no I would not, the offending side did worse than this on the hand! No damage! B2. Communicating with partner through the "pro" question is again suitable for a warning. Note that as this example shows the soi-disant "pro" question is often used in other partnerships where one player thinks he knows what is going on and his partner does not. As with #B1a I only issue a PP if this pair have made a habit of this offence. B3a. As explained above there might be some doubt as to what North said. But assuming he did say something unfortunate, I warn him, as well! B3b. OK, it is a UI problem, and we disallow the spade lead. On a heart lead, nine tricks are normal, getting the diamond guess wrong, as before, because of entry considerations. Actually a spade trick will also appear often, so let us say that the result will be 50% 3NT= + 50% 3NT+1 So perhaps we should adjust this way for E/W, since they are the NOs under #3b. But what about #1b then? Bear with me for a bit: I shall return later - see #C2. B4. We have to control discipline. It is my view, the view of the L&ECs of the EBU and the WBU, the view of the people who started Zero tolerance, and many people's view that the best way to do it is by Directors using their disciplinary powers. So a DP would be in order. However, like the other penalties, this should be a warning unless it is a common occurrence for the player concerned. Phew! Now, what do we actually do? Let us consider penalties, then adjustments. C1. I warn East for not alerting the 2S bid [#B1a], and for shouting at her opponent [#B4]. I warn South for the "pro" question [#B2]. I warn North for making it clear what he would have done [#B3a]. I congratulate West for doing nothing wrong! :)) C2. As far as adjustments are concerned I have to consider #B1b, MI, with N/S the NOs and #B3b, UI, with E/W the NOs. I shall consider each side separately. To be honest, we do not have a lot of guidance for multiple infractions. Some people think we should deal with them in order. This has always seemed correct to me where the same side is the offenders, but not necessarily otherwise. Perhaps we should go back to first principles. We are trying to redress damage: what would have happened, in our view, if there had been no infractions, giving the benefit of doubt to the NOs, as usual. If East alerts, North may double - no, it is not certain, despite what he said - and South would lead a spade, or maybe a heart with no double. If there is a double, the UI becomes irrelevant since the spade lead is automatic, and then the result on the board would be 50% 3NT-1 + 40% 3NT= + 10% 3NT+1 However, I think there may not be a double [only S A7532, remember]. Without it, the UI ruling comes in to play: we disallow a spade lead, and then the result would be 50% 3NT= + 50% 3NT+1 If we think North will double three times in five we get 30%+ 0%=30% 3NT-1 + 24%+20%=44% 3NT= + 6%+20%=26% 3NT+1 Say 30% 3NT-1 + 45% 3NT= + 25% 3NT+1 What about giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOs? I did that in the original figures. Of course, it would be easy to change the percentages, but this seems a reasonable approach overall. Have I forgotten anything? Well, I believe this was played in a place where L12C3 was enabled, but let us consider the effects if it was not. D1. The warnings are unchanged. I warn East twice, South and North. D2. My view of the first infraction was that with a double the likely results were 50% 3NT-1 + 40% 3NT= + 10% 3NT+1 and without 50% 3NT= + 50% 3NT+1 For E/W, as Os originally, we give them the worst score at all probable [L12C2] which is 3NT-1 assuming a double. Since the double is assumed the UI does not come in to play. For N/S, as NOs originally, we give them the best score that was likely without the infraction, and the same logic comes in to play and we get 3NT-1 assuming a double. This does not automatically feel right. N/S have offended in the use of UI but nothing happens as a result. However, adjustments are not designed to punish, so the adjustment seems fair. How about a PP to warn South of the use of UI? I know he is inexperienced, but it was so blatant ["I would have done something over 2S" "Oh, look, I have led my tripleton, aren't I clever"] and the Director warned against it. Yes, that is the answer. 10% of a top and explain why gently. After all, he is getting a *very* good score. It was not necessary in #C2 because part of the adjustment was based on disallowing the spade lead, and South lost some of his good table score, but it is necessary in a L12C2 jurisdiction. OK, let's summarise. If L12C3 is enabled, warn North, South and East as a PP, and East as a DP, and adjust for both sides to 30% 3NT-1 + 45% 3NT= + 25% 3NT+1 If L12C3 is not enabled, warn North, South and East as a PP, and East as a DP, give South a 10% of a top PP, and let the table result [3NT-1] stand. Personally, I think this is one of the most interesting problems ever seen on BLML. OK, have your fun. Who thinks I am out of my tree? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 4 12:37:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f241a0Y01054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 12:36:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f241Zqt01050 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 12:35:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt8o4.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.163.4]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA21574 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2001 20:35:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <06fe01c0a44b$e77ff8c0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <024e01c0a2ac$e43ab060$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] When agreements depend on their meanings but they are vague Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 19:39:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Steve, Thanks for your very thorough and complete answers and help to my rambling questions. At present, I have neither cats nor d*gs where I live, but I do have some furry friends. There is just one question remaining for me. It relates to a sentence I buried deep in the middle of my original question: "Assume that their convention card offers no information in the notrump section that would have helped us check this out before the round began." As I read your answers, and Alain's, I see no explicit reference to their CC, but I would think it one situation if their CC had substantially the same explanation as they are giving now when it happens, and quite another if their CC was blank in the NT-interference section, or meant only for strong notrumps, or otherwise substantially incomplete for describing their agreements for their double of our weak 1 notrump. What can (and should) the director do when their meaning of the double is news to us relative to what is on their CC? After all, if their CC had been complete in the first place, there would have been no problem. (We look at their CC before we start so that we can clear these things up with partner ahead of time.) But if their CC gave no warning, is there no way to get us back to where we should have been if their CC had been complete? Jerry Fusselman ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] When agreements depend on their meanings but they are vague > Jerry Fusselman writes > > > >Just joined BLML. It is excellent, thanks! I live in ACBL land, but I hope > >these questions have general interest too. > > Hi Jerry. Nice to see you. Do you have any cats [or d*gs]? > > >My partners and I have several agreements that depend on what the opponents > >have shown. For example, after we open 1 notrump (11--13) and they double, > >the meaning of all of our calls below 3 notrump depends on whether their > >double is strong or "trifling." > > > >A. If their double is strong, cheap bids are bailouts: redouble shows one > >long suit and 2 clubs shows clubs and another suit, a la DONT. > > > >B. If their double is conventional and not necessarily strong, systems are > >on, and redouble shows penalty interest. We call this kind of a double > >"trifling". > > > >If the double is unalerted, we presume it strong. If it is alerted as > >takeout, it is still strong. If is alerted and it shows one suit or clubs > >and major, it is trifling. You can see that we must always be on the same > >page as to whether the double is strong or trifling. Here are my questions: > > > >What can we do if the opponents seem vague, evasive, or self-contradictory > >in telling us what their double means? Or what if they say it is either > >strong or a one suiter---they cannot remember---good luck? Or what if > >something crazy or unanticipated comes along, such as > >strong-or-conventional, or intermediate-plus-or-conventional, or > >intermediate-plus-and-conventional? Assume that their convention card offers > >no information in the notrump section that would have helped us check this > >out before the round began. You can also assume that to avoid UI we make it > >a rule to never ask about their unalerted double and always ask about their > >alerted double. > > If you get a complete answer and then have a problem it is your fault > because you should have a simple rule to cover such cases. If you get > an incomplete or evasive answer then you should call the Director. > > My experience of the last few months has made one thing crystal clear > to me: the most important time to call a Director *immediately* is in > potential or actual misinformation cases. There is much he can do. > > >1. Is the confusion we have in these cases our doing, or theirs? Or does > >this aspect even matter? > > It sounds a bit of both. You need a simple rule to cover complex but > correct answers. If the correct answer is intermediate-plus and > conventional then when you get that answer you should know what to do. > If you get the answer that he is not sure then you call the director. > > >2. Any questions we ask could cause a UI problem, right? What kinds of > >questions are proper, and which are improper? There seems a danger that > >several questions can cost us points in subsequent rulings. What is this > >called---QD for Question Disruption? > > You ask how they play it. According to the EBU [I know the EBU has no > jurisdiction in the ACBL but it seems sensible] supplementary questions > are permitted but must not amount to harrassment. In effect i think you > can ask them to explain further, but after that you need help. > > >3. Can we call the director and explain the problem we are having in direct > >langauge? I called a director in a case like this, saying only that I was > >unclear about what their double showed. I did not say that we need to know > >what their double shows before we can take our next actions. He said to me > >something like, "They have answered your questions the best they can, so > >play on." What can we say to a director? Are there any rules, provisions, or > >proceedures for this kind of situation? I would think the best solution > >would be for the director to somehow ask them the questions. > > You have had the wrong advice from the Director. Admittedly it is a > difficult area but I would advise you to keep calling the Director in > future even if some of them may not be helpful. > > >4. If I were to say after getting several vague answers to my questions to > >the alerter, "OK, we will just call it a strong double since pass by you > >is a clear possibility." That would solve the problem for us, but that would > >be considered illegal and their case against us for UI would be > >overwhelming, right? > > You must not say that. That is unethical because you are passing > information to your partner. A comment of this is a very serious breach > of the rules and should get you a heavy penalty. > > > (I have witnessed strong players do this > >I-hereby-summarize-for-you-what-your-call-means-in-a-few-words kind of thing > >dozens of times after asking about an alert, so maybe I am wrong.) > > It depends on the circumstances. In the situation you are talking > about it is absolutely forbidden because you are saying it for your > partner's benefit. > > >5. I could also ask questions and keep asking until, finally, I get one > >clear answer that points one way or the other, then say "thank you" and > >stop. Our problem would be solved, because we would just use the last thing > >they said. But to me that sounds likely to be improper on our part also. > > Certainly, continual questions amount to harrassment. Ask a question > or two , have a simple rule, and if the oppos are confused, call the > Director for help. > > -- > 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 Mar 4 13:11:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f242Agh01082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:10:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f242AZt01078 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:10:36 +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 14ZNyc-000Bkj-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 02:10:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 23:14:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation and Misexplanations References: <20010303041928.WLWW2261674.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> In-Reply-To: <20010303041928.WLWW2261674.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >These laws relate to misinformation and misexplanation. > >L21B1 clearly states that a failure to alert constitutes misinformation. > >There is no such statement in the parallel law in the play, as opposed to in the >auction. L47E2. Well, maybe not. But the heading, not part of the Law as we all know, refers to misinformation. I think you are just looking too hard into this. It is rare that a failure to alert is relevant ion the play, and I see no reason to treat it differently. >Is that ommision significant? Not in my view. >L75D requires a player to inform the opponents of a misexplanation but does not >mention a failure to alert. By definition an alert is designed to inform the >opponents that an explanation may be required. > >Is this different emphasis intentional? Not in my view. >It seems odd to me that it would be. But currently it seems a valid arguement >that "I did not have to tell you that we failed to alert (only a failure to >explain correctly)" and in fact L72B3 says that there is no obligation to draw >attention to a irregularity except mistaken explanations (and not failure to >alert). Maybe. but L75A is clear, and I think we all know that this is a game played with open partnership agreements. I think it is possible the wording is a little loose. >I think this needs tidying up. True. but until the next Law book, let us treat all misinfomration the same. >I don't like making rulings like - > >"I think you should have informed the opponents at the end of the auction that >there was a failure to alert - the laws only say that you should do this if >there is a mistaken explanation..." > >Of course I can ignor this and still make an adjustment based on the failure to >alert but only when attention has been drawn to that. > >Note: I think that it is clear that "explanation" and "information" are quite >different concepts which creates the confusion I have here. > >L21B1 and L47E2 deal with information but L75D2 deals with explanations (only a >subset of information IMO). I think the confusion is solely in the detailed wording and we should not allow a ruling which clearly breaches L75A. -- 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 Mar 4 13:11:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f242Ate01102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:10:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f242Ait01085 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:10:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ZNyn-000JyV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 02:10:40 +0000 Message-ID: <0K4XA$CAhZo6EwnY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 01:20:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B References: <200102161757.MAA00601@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000a01c09bea$1a643040$3c2828c4@john> In-Reply-To: <000a01c09bea$1a643040$3c2828c4@john> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF writes >Here in Zone 5-CACBF, we follow the WBF lead >and forbid defenders to ask one another until play >has ceased. So, in which Zones may defenders ask partner? 1 EBL Europe No 2 ACBL North America Yes 3 CSB South America Don't know 4 BFAME Asia and the Middle East Don't know 5 CACBF Central America & Carribean No 6 PABF Pacific Asia No [1] 7 SPBF South Pacific Yes 8 ABF Africa No [2] [1] In Zone 6 you are not allowed to ask partner in Zonal championships but the Zone allows individual NCBOs to make up their own minds. [2] In Zone 8 you are not allowed to ask partner in Zonal championships but South Africa has decided to allow players to ask partner. Full details of which Zones any NCBO is attached to, plus details of their websites, can be found at: http://blakjak.com/brg_lnkn.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 Sun Mar 4 13:11:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f242B6001118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:11:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f242Alt01089 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:10:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ZNyp-000JyU-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 02:10:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 01:21:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 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? Three, I presume. -- 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 Mar 4 13:11:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f242B9P01119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:11:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f242Ant01093 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:10:50 +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 14ZNyu-000JyT-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 02:10:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 01:24:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 David Burn writes >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? Three. Same logic: we have evidence that declarer is not a very careful player, and if he thinks the second finesse is winning, why should he count? -- 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 Mar 4 13:11:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f242BC401120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:11:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f242Aot01096 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:10:51 +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 14ZNyv-000Bkk-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 02:10:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 01:28:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes References: <200102261356280160.0090B750@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200102261356280160.0090B750@mail.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch writes >>>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. I have played a few times with braille cards: they definitely are available. -- 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 Mar 4 13:11:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f242BCE01121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:11:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f242Apt01101 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:10:52 +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 14ZNyv-000JyV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 02:10:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 01:53:03 +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: <200102201526.KAA17831@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200102201526.KAA17831@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> 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. When, as a player, I have tried to establish a hesitation in such situations, oppos accept there was one about nine times in ten. -- 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 Mar 4 13:11:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f242BD701122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:11:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f242Aot01099 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:10:51 +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 14ZNyv-000Bkj-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 02:10:47 +0000 Message-ID: <9aqVkPDJ0Zo6EwHZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 01:40:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes References: <20010225112512.TWFV15770362.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> <200102261748.JAA28484@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200102261748.JAA28484@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 >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. I cannot agree at all with this. When I travel by train, I expect to sit down: if someone with a disability needs a seat, I will stand. When I take a seat in a restaurant, I expect to enjoy a meal in peace: if someone with a serious disability needs help, or my seat, or something, then I am going to be disturbed. If an opponent messes my bridge game up somewhat because of her disability, that is tough, and I should not be objecting. I am lucky to have no really serious health problems at the level we are talking about and I would hate to think that I would do anything but accept such a situation. Of course, if the situation can be improved by braille cards, good. But if not, then players should accept it. Who knows, in a few years they may need similar consideration. As for penalising such a player, words fail 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 Mar 4 19:12:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f248CA811481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:12:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f248C3t11477 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:12:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-201.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.201]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f248BwS22002 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:11:59 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A9FCFE9.B8CCF7C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 17:52:57 +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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <4.3.2.7.1.20010302074745.00ab31a0@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 While I admire the simplicity (he thinks) of Eric's suggestion, and while there is something to be said for it, I do think that Eric is manifestly out of touch with current practice around the world. I do believe that the current practice (separating consequent and subsequent damage) requires a certain amout of elaboration, but I don't think that simply abolishing it for the sake of simplicity is in the benefit of the game of bridge. Consider indeed that this gives the NOs a free double shot. Eric Landau wrote: > [snipped] -- 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 Mar 4 19:39:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f248dm811519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:39:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.rdc1.md.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.md.home.com [24.2.2.66]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f248dht11515 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:39:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from BRIAN ([24.180.160.52]) by mail.rdc1.md.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010304083939.VKBG21797.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@BRIAN> for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 00:39:39 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 03:39:41 -0500 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: References: <200102261356280160.0090B750@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 01:28:18 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Brian Baresch writes >>>>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. > > I have played a few times with braille cards: they definitely are >available. > I can confirm what David says from first hand experience, having played for four years on a London team of four with a blind (totally, not just legally) player, and also having occasionally directed at a London club which had a blind player, and which put out a full set of braille cards when said player was playing (he used to give advance notice to the club owner that he was going to turn up that night, AFAIR). I also played at another club with one player who was extremely short sighted due to a degenerative eye disease, but rather than use braille cards his solution was to carry a large magnifying glass to look at his own cards, and his partner and opps would announce their cards. The player on the team of four certainly had his own set of 32 braille boards, and I recall him renewing the cards in them at least twice during the four years that I played on that team, bridge was his main recreation, and those cards saw a LOT of use! If I remember rightly, the cards were obtained through the Royal National Institute for the Blind in the UK. I have no idea who would supply them in other countries - but given the amount of practical support that the state of Delaware gave to my partially sighted mother in law, I would be extremely surprised if they weren't readily available in the USA, I suspect it's just a case of knowing who to ask. I don't usually make "me too" posts, but I have to add that in my experience of blind and partially sighted players, I can't remember a single occasion where they got less than the fullest consideration from their opponents, and the suggestion of assessing penalties against a handicapped player due to their handicap leaves me as lost for words as it has a number of other posters. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 4 19:57:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f248vJr11551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:57:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f248vDt11547 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:57:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-68-181.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.68.181]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA14382 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 08:56:42 GMT Message-ID: <003601c0a489$26b75dc0$d55f063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: [BLML] 'The night is fine,' the Walrus said .... Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 08:56:12 -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 "Remember when life's path is steep to keep an even mind." - Horace. <==--==> +=+ Looking at my screen this morning I have the impression that, maybe, DWS is back. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 4 21:07:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24A6pn17223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:06:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f24A6ct17162 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:06:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-78-157.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.78.157]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10987; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 10:06:07 GMT Message-ID: <011501c0a492$d9618000$d55f063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010228134440.00860430@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton, better late than never Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:26:55 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Remember when life's path is steep to keep an even mind." - Horace. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton, better late than never --------------------- \x/ ---------------- > However, unlike most other publications you will > notice we name the TDs. In Maastricht Kojak told > me we should not name the TDs while the popular > conception was that the TD took the decision. Of > course, no competent TD ever takes a decision > single-handed but we wanted to name the person > who takes the facts and then presents them. We > find very curious the idea elsewhere that any other > TD should present the facts apart from the table > TD. --------------------- \x/ --------------------- > +=+ Kojak's request would apply in WBF events. It would not be his view, I think, in competitions where the point is universally understood that judgement decisions are invariably the product of consultation; owing to the mix of personalities and backgrounds that we have in the WBF, we have found in the past rare occasions when a TD has been criticised for a ruling that, personally, he did not even agree with. It should always be remembered that the Director in Charge is responsible for all rulings by his assistants, and if anyone wishes to express a critical view on a ruling it is the DiC to whom it should be addressed. It may be that a future Brighton Appeals publication could have a caveat on the point up front. [Cpf. CoP: page 8, 'Instruction to CTD'.] ~ 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 Mar 4 21:07:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24A6sm17237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:06:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f24A6et17172 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:06:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-78-157.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.78.157]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA11000 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 10:06:09 GMT Message-ID: <011601c0a492$da666ce0$d55f063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com><200102222010.MAA08741@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:39:47 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Remember when life's path is steep to keep an even mind." - Horace. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 > Adam Beneschan writes > >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." > > +=+ A possible explanation is that English can be a very difficult language when seeking to express shades of meaning. Herman may have been looking for a phrase that did not come. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 4 21:07:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24A6sd17239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:06:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f24A6ft17183 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:06:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-78-157.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.78.157]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA11012 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 10:06:11 GMT Message-ID: <011701c0a492$db4fe280$d55f063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: [BLML] Lost Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 10:06:09 -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 "What hope of answer or redress? Behind the veil, behind the veil. " - Tennyson. <==--==> +=+ I know that someone sent me a private enquiry to which I have not replied. There has been a glitch in the machine that has caused some messages to be lost to me for ever. If you are wondering why I have not responded, and still want an answer, please put the question again. Apologies. ~ 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 Mar 4 21:23:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24ANDn17650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:23:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f24AN2t17635 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:23:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-142.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.142]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f24AMvF02719 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 11:22:58 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:01:13 +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] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@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 Now here's a new light ! David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >(1) Should a revoke be considered a "wild, gambling or irrational" > >action? I don't think so, but the consensus of BLML seems to be > >otherwise, so let's assume it should be and go on... > > I think a revoke is an irrational action. This has considerable > importance for England and Wales, since we have decided not to go with > the interpretation of "irrational, wild or gambling" but to stick with > "wild or gambling" since we feel at least a possibility of the double > shot should be involved before we deny redress. In other words, in > England/Wales the correct ruling is NS+170 for both sides. > Did everyone miss this ? Do the English - apart from David - realize this ? I this indeed what they intended ? In the ROTW, the "irrational" has not been taken away, so there a revoke still loses your side's right to full redress. This is important, in the light of several other rulings. A pair are in 3Sp, after a misexplanation from opponents. They make 10 tricks. The rest of the room is in 4Sp, making 11. What is the AS ? +420 or +450 ? Most of us would say +420. (after seeing that nothing special happened in the play that would not have happened in the game contract). But David's line of reasoning seems to suggest that the AS is and should always be +450. -- 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 Mar 4 21:23:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24ANMh17656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:23:23 +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.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f24ANCt17649 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:23:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-142.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.142]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f24AN4F02733 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 11:23:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA21144.B9B17C23@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:56:20 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI 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: > > > OK, let's summarise. > > If L12C3 is enabled, warn North, South and East as a PP, and East as a > DP, and adjust for both sides to > > 30% 3NT-1 + > 45% 3NT= + > 25% 3NT+1 > > If L12C3 is not enabled, warn North, South and East as a PP, and East > as a DP, give South a 10% of a top PP, and let the table result [3NT-1] > stand. > You forgot the compliment to West for doing nothing wrong. > Personally, I think this is one of the most interesting problems ever > seen on BLML. > You've certainly made it thus. > OK, have your fun. Who thinks I am out of my tree? > I do - for taking this too seriously. I am assuming the original case was not from a World Championship, and then to spend about 2 hours analysing it seems a waste of valuable TD time. But then, this is probably what I would do as well. I just wrote 4 pages for an appeal on a fouled board, so maybe I am out of my tree as well. Welcome back David, we've 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 Sun Mar 4 21:23:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24ANFB17651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:23:15 +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 f24AN4t17636 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:23:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-142.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.142]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f24AMxF02725 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 11:23:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA205A1.540D61CB@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:06:41 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] When agreements depend on their meanings but they are vague References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <024e01c0a2ac$e43ab060$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> <06fe01c0a44b$e77ff8c0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A welcome from me too, Jerry. Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > There is just one question remaining for me. It relates to a sentence I > buried deep in the middle of my original question: "Assume that their > convention card offers no information in the notrump section that would have > helped us check this out before the round began." As I read your answers, > and Alain's, I see no explicit reference to their CC, but I would think it > one situation if their CC had substantially the same explanation as they are > giving now when it happens, and quite another if their CC was blank in the > NT-interference section, or meant only for strong notrumps, or otherwise > substantially incomplete for describing their agreements for their double of > our weak 1 notrump. > > What can (and should) the director do when their meaning of the double is > news to us relative to what is on their CC? After all, if their CC had been > complete in the first place, there would have been no problem. (We look at > their CC before we start so that we can clear these things up with partner > ahead of time.) But if their CC gave no warning, is there no way to get us > back to where we should have been if their CC had been complete? > You are being far too cautious, Jerry. When trying to find out about opponent's system, you have absolute rights. Those rights supersede the UI problems, as long as all bases are covered. So if you have : 1) checked their CC, 2) asked at your turn (whether you needed to know or not) 3) can even explain to the TD that you really need to know, since your systemic response depends on it (even if you would in actuality make the same call regardless of the meaning) Then you have done nothing wrong. Moreover, if you are this careful, you have provided partner with no useful information. So even if it is UI (and in theory it is), it cannot suggest any action so your partner is not bound by L16. I admire your dedication to active ethics, but you should go only as far as you can, not further. -- 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 Mar 4 21:23:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24ANK817655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:23:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f24AN6t17641 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:23:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-142.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.142]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f24AN2F02729 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 11:23:02 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA20E09.A800841A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:42:33 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] How to adjust - a summary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We've had a lot of messages recently about consequent and subsequent damage, and what to do about adjusting. I shall try and provide a framework for future reference. I am filling this with the clear answers. Some holes are not satisfactorily filled. In all these cases, I shall assume NS are the OS, and all scores are positive for them. The infraction is assumed, we are only dealing with the adjustment. I want to introduce five scores. We should always assume that this means a contract and a result, not just a score, but I will only deal with the numerical value. I am assuming we know how to deal with calculation. If I write "NOs get A1" we know what to do. The five scores : A1 and A2 are the possible scores before the infraction. I am using only two possible scores, all reasonings and formulae are easily adapted to more than 2 possible outcomes. A1 is smaller than A2 (for NS) B1 and B2 are the possible scores after the infraction. B1 is smaller than B2. C is the actual table result. In normal cases, C will be equal to B1 or B2, but in some cases, due to NOs action not related to the infraction, the result can differ from the "possible" scores. I believe you realise the type of things I am referring to. I want to introduce 2 probabilities: p is the probability that, without the infraction, the result will be A2 as opposed to A1. q is the same probability for B2. We can then define : A = (1-p) A1 + p A2 and B = (1-q) B1 + q B2 as the "expected outcome" before and after the infraction. Of course these calculations are done in MP or IMP or even VP, not in bridge scores. Some people would say that there is only damage when B > A, but I am not assuming this as gospel. Let's consider the different cases from the point of the actual table result : CASE 1 : C = B2 (the NOs have not played to the best possible result). Since we are calling B2 a possible result, standard practice is to not count this against NOs. case 1a) B2 > A2. The NOs is clearly damaged. The AS will be A1, A2 or A, depending on the zone and the value of p. (standard case) case 1b) A2 > B2 > B > A The NOs is probably damaged. If the AS would be A1 or A in the case above, I am assuming it will still be that in this case. If the AS above would be A2, then there will be no correction. case 1c) A2 > B2 > A > B The NOs were in the possibility to get a better score because of the infraction, and did not take this possibility. I believe we would agree not to give any compensation. case 1d) A > B2 > A1 The NOs got a better score than they might have expected without the infraction, and could have done even better. I certainly think there is no need for compensation. case 1e) A1 > B2 (included for completeness) We will not hear from this table again. NOs are not damaged. CASE 2 : C = B1 (the NOs have played to the best possible result). case 2a) B1 > A2 No matter what the NOs did, they could not escape damage. AS as in case 1a) side question : this NOs pair did better than their counterparts in case 1a, but received the same table result. Do we mind ? I don't, because bridge is not always fair, is it ? case 2b) A2 > B1 > A as in 1b, NOs would get the AS to A or A1. case 2c) A > B1 > A1 NOs have done better than they could have expected. Do they still award A1 in the ACBL ? case 2d) A1 > B1 Apart from the fact that they deserved it by their own good play, there is no distinction with case 1e) We won't hear fro this table again, unless some wise guy tries to extract the maximum. now to the interesting parts : CASE 3 : C > B2 The NOs (probably through an additional grave error from OS) have received an even better result than they could have received. CASE 4 : B1 > C (I am not considering that C might lie between B1 and B2 - I am assuming it is a "normal" score then that might be included into the possibles Bx) The NOs have made an error that was unexpected at the time of the infraction, and are now to blame for a substantial part of their own demise. case 4a) B > A There was a potential for damage. Consensus seems to be that NOs deserve something for this, probably something like C-(B-A) Consensus also seems to be that OS ought not to benefit, and they should receive A (or A1) case 4b) A > B There was potentially no damage. I am assuming everyone would let the table result stand. I think I have covered all possibilities, and I think that most of us would agree on the answers in each 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 Sun Mar 4 21:44:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24AiUc19092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:44:30 +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-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 f24AiKt19040 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:44:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ZVzm-000Doh-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 10:44:16 +0000 Message-ID: <95mlswD77ao6EwVQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 02:56:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] When agreements depend on their meanings but they are vague References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <024e01c0a2ac$e43ab060$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> <06fe01c0a44b$e77ff8c0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <06fe01c0a44b$e77ff8c0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman writes >Hello Steve, ???? >Thanks for your very thorough and complete answers and help to my rambling >questions. At present, I have neither cats nor d*gs where I live, but I do >have some furry friends. > >There is just one question remaining for me. It relates to a sentence I >buried deep in the middle of my original question: "Assume that their >convention card offers no information in the notrump section that would have >helped us check this out before the round began." As I read your answers, >and Alain's, I see no explicit reference to their CC, but I would think it >one situation if their CC had substantially the same explanation as they are >giving now when it happens, and quite another if their CC was blank in the >NT-interference section, or meant only for strong notrumps, or otherwise >substantially incomplete for describing their agreements for their double of >our weak 1 notrump. > >What can (and should) the director do when their meaning of the double is >news to us relative to what is on their CC? After all, if their CC had been >complete in the first place, there would have been no problem. (We look at >their CC before we start so that we can clear these things up with partner >ahead of time.) But if their CC gave no warning, is there no way to get us >back to where we should have been if their CC had been complete? Failure to fill in the CC adequately is just as much misinformation as anything else: just ask for a 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 Sun Mar 4 22:04:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24B4UF26029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 22:04:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f24B4Nt25993 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 22:04:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qtabg.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.169.112]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA26295; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 06:04:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <079201c0a49b$4a5451e0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <024e01c0a2ac$e43ab060$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> <06fe01c0a44b$e77ff8c0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> <95mlswD77ao6EwVQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] When agreements depend on their meanings but they are vague Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 05:07:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello David, Terribly sorry! Humblest appologies! I can't beleive I goofed writing your name. My oldest brother is Steve, and I have a brother David too, but I still cannot see how I goofed like that. Please accept my apologies! I am sure I will get it right in the future. Thanks again for yours answers. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] When agreements depend on their meanings but they are vague > Jerry Fusselman writes > >Hello Steve, > > ???? > > >Thanks for your very thorough and complete answers and help to my rambling > >questions. At present, I have neither cats nor d*gs where I live, but I do > >have some furry friends. > > > >There is just one question remaining for me. It relates to a sentence I > >buried deep in the middle of my original question: "Assume that their > >convention card offers no information in the notrump section that would have > >helped us check this out before the round began." As I read your answers, > >and Alain's, I see no explicit reference to their CC, but I would think it > >one situation if their CC had substantially the same explanation as they are > >giving now when it happens, and quite another if their CC was blank in the > >NT-interference section, or meant only for strong notrumps, or otherwise > >substantially incomplete for describing their agreements for their double of > >our weak 1 notrump. > > > >What can (and should) the director do when their meaning of the double is > >news to us relative to what is on their CC? After all, if their CC had been > >complete in the first place, there would have been no problem. (We look at > >their CC before we start so that we can clear these things up with partner > >ahead of time.) But if their CC gave no warning, is there no way to get us > >back to where we should have been if their CC had been complete? > > Failure to fill in the CC adequately is just as much misinformation as > anything else: just ask for a 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 4 22:15:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24BFQi29849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 22:15:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f24BFJt29811 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 22:15:20 +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 CAA05046 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 02:30:43 -0900 Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 02:14:47 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Wrinkle at the club Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Had something interesting happen at Friday night's game. I heard angry voices to my left, something like "you can't do that after a claim" and then "well, then we'll play on." This piqued my interest enough to stroll over and ask if the table needed a director. Surprise surprise, they did. There had apparently been some sort of bad claim, so I told them to face their hands, and asked them to repeat the claim statement. I saw a fairly normal enough layout, as bad claims go: South declarer, hearts trumps, south to lead: S K H - D - C 95 S Q S - H - H 7 D 87 D 96 C - C - S J H T9 D - C - Everyone agreed "no line of play had been stated"... however, there was a frustrating wrinkle in the chronology: Before South led, West said "the board is up." North, dummy, immediately agreed, "yes it is." South, some few seconds later, said something to the effect of "and I have winners in my hand too, I have the rest", and faced her hand. Several more seconds passed before East started making noise about a bad claim. Further questioning of the players revealed that East had previously trumped a spade earlier in the play, and also that North and South both believed all the trump to be gone. Had West said nothing, it is pretty much a tossup whether this South (from what I know of her) would have claimed or played it out, and just as much a tossup how she would have played it out. --- Is this a concession by West, or a claim by South, or both? If it's a concession, East failed to object in a timely fashion, and declarer is awarded all three tricks. If it's a claim, defender is entitled to her H7. If it's both, heaven help us. Which rule takes precedence? Was North out of order to say anything (dummy remains silent) or is he once again allowed the normal rights of any player in the instant after a tentative concession? Yes, dummy spoke so quickly that East couldn't have gotten in an objection first even if she tried. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 5 02:46:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24FjAj18327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 02:45:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f24Fibt18244 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 02:44:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-008.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.200]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA44256 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 15:44:27 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 15:45:21 -0000 Message-ID: <01C0A4C2.1F1A4580.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Wrinkle at the club Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 15:45:20 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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 Gordon asked: South declarer, hearts trumps, south to lead: S K H - D - C 95 S Q S - H - H 7 D 87 D 96 C - C - S J H T9 D - C - Everyone agreed "no line of play had been stated"... however, there was a frustrating wrinkle in the chronology: Before South led, West said "the board is up." North, dummy, immediately agreed, "yes it is." South, some few seconds later, said something to the effect of "and I have winners in my hand too, I have the rest", and faced her hand. Several more seconds passed before East started making noise about a bad claim. Further questioning of the players revealed that East had previously trumped a spade earlier in the play, and also that North and South both believed all the trump to be gone. Had West said nothing, it is pretty much a tossup whether this South (from what I know of her) would have claimed or played it out, and just as much a tossup how she would have played it out. --- Put me in the 'West has conceded camp' 68B. South gets all three tricks if East does not immediately object. South will draw trumps and get all three tricks even if East does immediately object. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 5 05:00:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24HxR704312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 04:59:27 +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 (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f24Hwpt04232 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 04:58:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-101-58.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.101.58]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA22556; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 17:58:12 GMT Message-ID: <000b01c0a4d4$cf18b9a0$3a65063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7C8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <4.3.2.7.1.20010302074745.00ab31a0@127.0.0.1> <3A9FCFE9.B8CCF7C@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 17:57:42 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "What hope of answer or redress? Behind the veil, behind the veil. " - Tennyson. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking > While I admire the simplicity (he thinks) of Eric's > suggestion, and while there is something to be said > for it, I do think that Eric is manifestly out of touch > with current practice around the world. > > I do believe that the current practice (separating > consequent and subsequent damage) requires a > certain amount of elaboration, but I don't think that > simply abolishing it for the sake of simplicity is to > the benefit of the game of bridge. > > Consider indeed that this gives the NOs a free > double shot. > +=+ It has long been the view at international level that non-offenders have the right to redress for damage that is caused to them by opponents' infractions, but not for any aggravation of that damage inflicted upon themselves by the wholly unreasonable ('irrational, wild or gambling') actions of the non-offenders subsequent to the infraction. This view was re-affirmed by the WBF LC in 1998 and it is supported by the WBF Code of Practice. I am of the opinion this is the right principle and that it is entirely workable for anyone with a modicum of intelligence. In respect of non-offenders' revokes occurring subsequent to the infraction my own opinion is that these should be classified as 'accidents'; I do not believe that an action which is unheeding can be referred to as either rational or irrational when it is unintended and not therefore a considered or purposeful action. However, various recommendations and rulings have been made from time to time that override this view. See WBF CoP, under 'Score Adjustment'. ~ 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 Mar 5 08:52:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24LqQh21312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:52:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f24LhFt19247 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:43:18 +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 14ZgHS-000CvU-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:43:08 +0000 Message-ID: <874FMXGAjpo6Ewl9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:34:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? References: <3A964564.547FFD94@village.uunet.be> <000a01c09def$7f8f0d80$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <000a01c09def$7f8f0d80$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 >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? Acting in a way that a player would not. We know that this player is such a casual sort of person that he is prepared to concede a trick here. So, for him to concede a trick is not irrational. Let me give you an example from last night. RHO, declarer, leads the DQ. Dummy has A8xx, and declarer can be counted for two cards in that suit. Do you cover with Kxx? Of course you do. But is it irrational not to? Therein lies the difference between bridge as it is played, and as it is talked. Of course it is an irrational play in one way, since it cannot gain, but a careless player might fail to cover for a reason. So, in the current case. It may seem illogical to duck an ace in a grand, but a player might decide to do so [remember "Right through the Pack", by Norman deV Hart?]. It needs more than that to decide it is irrational. Why might a player do so? Because he thinks he might as well take his twelve, and not risk two off. Or [and the present case sounds like this to me] he just wants to get the hand over with as quickly as possible, because he does not have the stomach for playing grands off an ace. He is going to ream his pd out anyway. We know what sort of player he is because of his claim. Are you suggesting that if he had not claimed he would have done anything but grab the opening lead and play a spade? I think not. By the way, what about my example? Yes, it is irrational not to cover the DQ. But I did not anyway - and declarer had done a Chinese finesse with Axxx opposite QT! Why did I not? because I had not bothered to count the hand, and was playing her for QJ9 - and then covering is a mistake. -- 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 Mar 5 08:52:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24Lhja19319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:43:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f24Lgwt19185 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:42:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ZgHF-000CvW-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:42:55 +0000 Message-ID: <1KoXArFDVoo6Ew3T@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 18:11:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 'The night is fine,' the Walrus said .... References: <003601c0a489$26b75dc0$d55f063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003601c0a489$26b75dc0$d55f063e@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ Looking at my screen this morning >I have the impression that, maybe, DWS >is back. +=+ Wot, 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 Mon Mar 5 09:07:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24Li3Q19351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:44:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f24LhAt19233 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:43:12 +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 14ZgHH-000CvX-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:43:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 18:37:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20010228123107.0082dc40@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010228123107.0082dc40@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 >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. From the CoP: If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. -- 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 Mar 5 09:08:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24M8Xq23351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:08:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f24M8Nt23346 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:08:24 +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 RAA07941 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 17:08:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA17206 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 17:08:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 17:08:19 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103042208.RAA17206@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Perhaps a better title for the > Subject line would be "Count the infractions". Let us see. Thanks for the extensive analysis. It looks quite right for L12C3 purposes (although no doubt one could quibble with the percentages). Without having yet read other responses, I am not certain how to adjust where 12C3 is not available. I did have one comment that may apply outside the EBU and related areas: > A2. South asks the meaning of 2S at a time when he cannot possibly be > thinking of bidding. Why? The most likely reason is that he strongly > suspects 2S should have been alerted When the unopposed auction has gone 1NT-2S-3NT, it is virtually certain that something should have been alerted. > and is trying to draw pd's attention to it. But this seems uncalled-for. South has to wait 10 s anyway, remember, because of the skip bid, and he expects to find himself on opening lead. It seems quite reasonable to me to ask what is going on in order to think about the lead, if nothing else. What I don't understand is why North didn't call the TD *before South passed* if he wanted to take some different action after hearing about the failure to alert. He should have had plenty of time during South's 10-s pause. I suspect in the real world there wasn't any pause, and there's one more infraction that David didn't count. (To be fair, we weren't told explicitly about it.) I am not sure whether this should change the adjustment, but I'm inclined to think so. > 30% 3NT-1 + > 45% 3NT= + > 25% 3NT+1 One approach for L12C2 would be to go through the whole process as David does and come up with the final numbers above, then use the percentages to decide which scores are "likely" and "at all probable." But then who is the NOS and who is the OS? One might treat each side as the OS, giving 3NT-1 to EW and 3NT+1 to NS. Another option would be to treat each side as the OS but use the "likely" standard instead of "at all probable." This leads to 3NT= for both sides. I kind of like this result, but I don't think the Laws support it. I am not fond of the "adjusted score + PP" approach, in general, but perhaps one can justify it on this hand. It's true South offended by "using UI," but he was put in that position only because of the original EW infraction. On the other hand, there would have been an easy chance to rectify that infraction if the TD had been called before South passed, so NS bear some culpability for creating the situation too. > Personally, I think this is one of the most interesting problems ever > seen on BLML. I agree. It even gives one some sympathy for the "standard ACBL adjustment" of avg- for both sides. :-) And welcome back, David. We missed you. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 5 09:22:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24Lhe119304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:43:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f24Lgrt19165 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:42:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ZgH8-000CvW-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:42:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 11:47:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AA20459.905C6A7C@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 >Now here's a new light ! > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > >> >(1) Should a revoke be considered a "wild, gambling or irrational" >> >action? I don't think so, but the consensus of BLML seems to be >> >otherwise, so let's assume it should be and go on... >> >> I think a revoke is an irrational action. This has considerable >> importance for England and Wales, since we have decided not to go with >> the interpretation of "irrational, wild or gambling" but to stick with >> "wild or gambling" since we feel at least a possibility of the double >> shot should be involved before we deny redress. In other words, in >> England/Wales the correct ruling is NS+170 for both sides. >> > >Did everyone miss this ? > >Do the English - apart from David - realize this ? > >I this indeed what they intended ? It is what we said, so why on earth should it not be what we intended? We believe that redress should be given where there is no possibility of the double shot. Personally, I also believe that to be fair and correct. >In the ROTW, the "irrational" has not been taken away, so >there a revoke still loses your side's right to full >redress. And I have never liked this approach. This is an extension of the ACBL's you must play bridge. Why should you have to? >This is important, in the light of several other rulings. I think we realised that, as well. >A pair are in 3Sp, after a misexplanation from opponents. >They make 10 tricks. The rest of the room is in 4Sp, making >11. >What is the AS ? +420 or +450 ? >Most of us would say +420. (after seeing that nothing >special happened in the play that would not have happened in >the game contract). >But David's line of reasoning seems to suggest that the AS >is and should always be +450. Eh? We do not look at other scores, as TDs are trained not to, so how would we have the faintest idea what the rest of the room is doing? And how is this relevant anyway? Whether IWoG [RoW] WoG [EBU] egregious [ACBL] action [1] is present is a decision taken by looking at the hand and hearing the arguments. [1] Just couldn't resist the acronyms game! -- 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 Mar 5 09:37:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24LiGx19375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:44:16 +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 f24LhCt19238 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:43:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ZgHR-000CvY-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:43:07 +0000 Message-ID: <8b1FUQG2ipo6EwH3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:34:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? References: <3A9595F2.CDBBD2EE@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes >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. If you claim 13 tricks, and you have 13 tricks then you get 13 tricks. >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 think you are misinterpreting L70A. The equity referred to is in the current position. Anyway, when there is a general statement followed by detail, we follow the detail. >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? None. You just give him his 13 tricks. I do not understand how that ignores L70E! If he thinks he has 13 tricks he is not intending to play a spade, and it would be irrational to make him do so! ---------- Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ I would say that if a player fails to recognize >that he has thirteen tricks it is quite rational to >concede one. I wish all my former partners were as logical as this! :)) ---------- John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article .com>, Gordon Bower writes >>> 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. Why? The only change based on time is Acquiescence, and I can assure you the oppos are very happy to acquiesce with a 7NT-1 claim. I can see no reason for giving him anything but 12 tricks. Of course, sometime later he will realise he is an idiot, but if he had played it out in the casual manner in which he made his claim surely he would have played a spade at T2. -- 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 Mar 5 09:44:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24LiKS19385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:44:21 +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 f24LhIt19259 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:43:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ZgHW-000CvV-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:43:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:59:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 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". 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. It seems a strange set of statements. The EBU L&EC, of which David is a very long-standing member, has just made clear a rule to cover precisely the situation that David makes. Thus something constructive has been done. >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 why is this going to cause difficulty? Why not let BLML know the L&EC decision and see whether it is acceptable? When we are moving forward let us applaud not worry that nothing is being done. The decision of the L&EC is that where a player believes all his cards to be high it is irrational not to play them from the top but it is normal to play any suit. So with KQ6 5 -- -- it is considered irrational to play the S6 first but not to play the H5 first. ---------- David Burn writes >We haven't "decreed" it - one of us just said it in a meeting last week, >and everyone else agreed with it. The Committee has published it in its minutes. If that is not decreeing it I am not sure what 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 Mon Mar 5 09:51:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f24LiRE19402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:44:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f24LhMt19276 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:43:26 +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 14ZgHb-000CvU-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:43:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 20:21:43 +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, Cecil 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, Sami 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, Flash 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 *. Schrodinger's cat does not appear, and Nanki Poo has been firmly told how to spell Schrodinger! Mind you, someone has suggested that if Schrodinger's cat is not on the list then that means that Schrodinger's cat is on the list ... 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 Mon Mar 5 11:22:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f250LWe01284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:21:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f250LKt01279 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:21:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt8g6.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.162.6]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA09726 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2001 19:21:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 18:23:56 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi David There is one aspect of your answer, you call it A2 and B2, that I do not understand yet. Perhaps this aspect varies by zones? I am sure you understand ACBL rules better than I do, but I think the ACBL requires immediate checking when it seems likely the opponents have failed to alert. Would you also sanction South for asking about 2S under ACBL jurisdiction too? If I was South, it would seem to me that either 2S should have been alerted, or else East discovered a missing ace. In the ACBL, as I understand it, if you fail to check for failures to alert in an obvious case like this, then you are partly to blame. Even North should check if South does not. The right to understand their system is absolute, and this overrides considerations of UI, does it not? As South, I would have asked too. Would you also sanction North for later asking about the meaning of the spade bid if South did not? When something strange occurs, I thought directors emphsized finding out what was going on at the earliest possible moment and calling the director if an irregularity, such as a failure to alert, occured. Thus, if N and S are perfect bridge citizens, they check at the earliest possible moment and call the director when there has been a failure to alert. In any zone, I would think. I also find the phrase "cannot possibly be thinking of bidding" confusing. Are you saying that only those players thinking of bidding should ask questions? Jerry Fusselman ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 7:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI > 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. > > > >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). > > I like this one. Having read four replies I think that no-one has > really grasped the problem in full. Perhaps a better title for the > Subject line would be "Count the infractions". Let us see. > >....... > > A2. South asks the meaning of 2S at a time when he cannot possibly be > thinking of bidding. Why? The most likely reason is that he strongly > suspects 2S should have been alerted and is trying to draw pd's > attention to it. To be charitable, I do not mean he is doing this > intentionally, but I bet it was part of his subconscious motivation. So > we have illegal communication between partners. > > ....... > > B2. Communicating with partner through the "pro" question is again > suitable for a warning. Note that as this example shows the soi-disant > "pro" question is often used in other partnerships where one player > thinks he knows what is going on and his partner does not. As with #B1a > I only issue a PP if this pair have made a habit of this offence. > > .......... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 5 11:30:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f250UBN01330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:30:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f250U2t01326 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:30:04 +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 14Zisv-000Pbo-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 00:29:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 00:28:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? References: <3A9595F2.CDBBD2EE@mindspring.com> <8b1FUQG2ipo6EwH3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8b1FUQG2ipo6EwH3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <8b1FUQG2ipo6EwH3@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Gordon Bower writes >>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. > snip > >John (MadDog) Probst writes >>In article >.com>, Gordon Bower writes > >>>> 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. > > Why? The only change based on time is Acquiescence, and I can assure >you the oppos are very happy to acquiesce with a 7NT-1 claim. Yep, on reflection I agree. > > I can see no reason for giving him anything but 12 tricks. Of course, >sometime later he will realise he is an idiot, but if he had played it >out in the casual manner in which he made his claim surely he would have >played a spade at T2. > -- 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 Mar 5 12:30:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f251Tkx12471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:29:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f251TVt12412 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:29:32 +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 14ZjoR-0005lx-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 01:29:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 00:56:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Ghestem again! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk B32 -- W N E S E/W KJT94 D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P T98 3S P 4S X AKJT43 Q2 AP A83 ++ Q7652 5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty 98765 oriented: description later K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" TMS A973 4Sx-1 KJ42 North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as H + D. She said everyone does so where she plays. South agreed he had probably got it wrong. The description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". East-West said that: 1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double of 3C showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements of a double of 3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to the doubt over the meaning of the double. 2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. 3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if he had known that it was not one of North's suits. So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? -- 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 Mar 5 13:07:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f251vrY14487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:57:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f251vJt14408 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:57:22 +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 14ZkFO-00037e-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 01:57:14 +0000 Message-ID: <1DlZpiANIvo6Ewn0@asimere.com> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 01:55:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem 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 , David Stevenson writes > > B32 -- W N E S > E/W KJT94 > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P > T98 3S P 4S X >AKJT43 Q2 AP >A83 ++ Q7652 >5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C >Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty > 98765 oriented: description later > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" > TMS A973 4Sx-1 > KJ42 > > North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as H + D. She >said everyone does so where she plays. South agreed he had probably got >it wrong. The description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". > > East-West said that: > >1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double of 3C >showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements of a double of >3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to the doubt over the meaning >of the double. >2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. >3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if he had known >that it was not one of North's suits. > > So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? > 3Cx - 2. Result stands -- 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 Mar 5 13:35:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f252YuT26527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:34:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f252Ybt26466 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:34:38 +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 NAA18377 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:38:11 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 05 Mar 2001 13:27:34 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:31:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 05/03/2001 01:32:22 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson revealed: >The definitions from the Orange book are: > >Puppet bid > An artificial bid, requesting partner to bid the next denomination up, >but not necessarily showing that suit (compare with definition of >Transfer bid). > >Relay bid > A response made to allow partner to bid again and indicating nothing >about the denomination bid. > >Transfer bid > An artificial bid, showing length in a specific suit (often the next >suit up) and usually expecting partner to bid that suit. I suspect that the authors of the Orange book were terminologically careless when writing these definitions. IMHO, *bid* should be replaced by *call*. For example, in my partnership's Symmetric Relay system, if the oppos are foolish enough to intervene, then I often describe pard's Pass as a *relay, asking me to describe my hand further*. Furthermore, when pard's relay continuation is a Double, then I describe it as a *non-forcing relay, asking me to describe my hand further*. (I am allowed to leave the double in, depending on vulnerability, and whether I hold unexpected length/strength in the oppos' suit.) I will refuse to adopt the suggestion that such a Double should be misleadingly described as *pass or correct*, merely because of a Humpty-Dumpty definition that all relays must be forcing. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 5 13:44:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f252ijc29228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:44:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f252ibt29194 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:44:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([213.105.140.27]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010305024428.BBV283.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 02:44:28 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c0a51e$6cf0dba0$1b8c69d5@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <1DlZpiANIvo6Ewn0@asimere.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 02:46:04 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 1:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! > In article , David Stevenson > writes > > > > B32 -- W N E S > > E/W KJT94 > > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P > > T98 3S P 4S X > >AKJT43 Q2 AP > >A83 ++ Q7652 > >5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C > >Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty > > 98765 oriented: description later > > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" > > TMS A973 4Sx-1 > > KJ42 > > > > North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as H + D. She > >said everyone does so where she plays. South agreed he had probably got > >it wrong. The description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". > > > > East-West said that: > > > >1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double of 3C > >showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements of a double of > >3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to the doubt over the meaning > >of the double. > >2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. > >3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if he had known > >that it was not one of North's suits. > > > > So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? > > > 3Cx - 2. Result stands > What do you mean --Result stands? Table contract was 4S. > I would rule 4Cx - 3 > Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 5 17:19:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f256It825887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:18:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin10.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f256Imt25865 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:18:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.57]) by mailin10.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G9POAD00.QMQ for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:20:37 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-185.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.185]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-All-Encompassing-MailRouter V2.9c 3/1654295); 05 Mar 2001 16:16:25 Message-ID: <015601c0a53b$be90fb80$b9dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:15:16 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >John Probst wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> B32 -- W N E S >> > E/W KJT94 >> > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P >> > T98 3S P 4S X >> >AKJT43 Q2 AP >> >A83 ++ Q7652 >> >5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C >> >Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty >> > 98765 oriented: description later >> > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" >> > TMS A973 4Sx-1 >> > KJ42 >> > >> > North says there is no question but that she plays 3C >> > as H + D. She said everyone does so where she plays. >> > South agreed he had probably got it wrong. The >> > description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". >> > >> > East-West said that: >> > >> >1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a >> > double of 3C showing H+C they were quite certain of >> > their agreements of a double of 3C showing H+D so >> > the misinformation led to the doubt over the meaning >> >of the double. >> >2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. >> >3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx >> > if he had known that it was not one of North's suits. >> > >> > So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? >> > >> 3Cx - 2. Result stands >> >What do you mean --Result stands? >Table contract was 4S. David asked two questions. John answered both questions. Guessing the answer to David's second question is about as hard as guessing what ASIMERE stands for (my guess is 1400 to EW). The rest of my post is my answer to the first question. If in Australia where L12C3 is not enabled for Directors, I might rule 5CX down six and advise NS of their right to appeal. After West's 3S call, North without the UI would most likely call either 5C or 4C. At the fav vul, 5C looks a standout to me, passed round to West who doubles (yes, South might have raised to 6C expecting a 7-4 or 6-4 club fit but I guess not). Against a 5C save, a trump lead stands out. Assuming EW are good players, West can easily deduce that clubs are 4333 on the bidding and decide that a forcing defence is best at Trick Two. Declarer ruffs SA, might ruff a heart (not knowing that the diamond finesse is on) and ruff a spade. Now DQ wins, a diamond to the nine is ruffed and spade winners are cashed. Declarer makes only his trump trick; down six.. My analysis is very subjective and assumes card play which (except for the H ruff) is probably way beyond the capabilities of the players involved, so if the hand occurred in England I would use L12C3, my guess being: 60% of 5CX down 4 20% of 5CX down 5 20% of 5CX down 6 This is a very rough approximation since the play of 5CX probably has over 100 variations. 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 Mar 5 18:07:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2577IJ06085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 18:07:18 +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 f25771t06078 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 18:07:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA13306 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 18:10:34 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 05 Mar 2001 17:59:56 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 18:03:59 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 05/03/2001 06:04:44 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson revealed: >>The decision of the L&EC is that where a player >>believes all his cards to be high it is irrational >>not to play them from the top but it is normal to >>play any suit. >> >> So with KQ6 >> 5 >> -- >> -- >> >>it is considered irrational to play the S6 first >>but not to play the H5 first. But when is a discard irrational? Edgar Kaplan (January 1983 Bridge World) wrote: >WEST >--- >Q6 >K >7 > SOUTH > KQ > K > Q > --- > >South, declarer at notrump, faces his last four >cards, and claims - apparently he has forgotten >that his diamond queen is not high. If South >cashes the spades and heart first, he wins three >tricks, West one. If he cashes the spades, then >leads the queen of diamonds, each side wins two >tricks. If he cashes the heart, then leads the >diamond, West wins three tricks to one. And if >South leads the diamond, then discards his heart >on West's club, West wins all the tricks. How >would you rule? The Dominant Strategy school might ridiculously rule that South gets three tricks. The Weighted Average school might ridiculously rule that South gets the matchpoint equivalent of one-and-a-half tricks. The David Burn school might (sensibly?) rule that South gets zero tricks. However, in posthumous reply to David Burn, Edgar Kaplan ruled: >Neither, though, should you award all four tricks >to West. It is true that declarer is as likely >to lead a diamond as any other card. But after >he does, when West wins and cashes his club, >declarer is *not* as likely to throw away the >heart queen as the spade queen - pitching the >heart would be a ridiculous blunder. > >The correct assumption is that declarer would >select the unluckiest of his *random* choices: >he would cash king of hearts, then lead the >queen of diamonds, giving West the last three >tricks. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 5 19:27:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f258R2306775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 19:27:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f258Qtt06771 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 19:26:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f258Qja17495 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:26:45 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:26 +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: <874FMXGAjpo6Ewl9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > Let me give you an example from last night. > > RHO, declarer, leads the DQ. Dummy has A8xx, and declarer can be > counted for two cards in that suit. Do you cover with Kxx? > > Of course you do. But is it irrational not to? If declarer a) has QJ doubleton b) needs two tricks from the suit c) needs an early dummy entry d) cannot afford to establish cashing tricks for you in that suit covering will cost. Declarer might, in certain circumstances, place you with xxxxxx and be intending to play the Ace. Declarer may not wish to risk the finesse since he believes he can take discards on a suit in which you are unexpectedly short. Declarer, with QT/9 may be attempting to transfer a menace to your partner and will rise with the Ace anyway (placing pard with KJ). While it is true that in these latter situations ducking doesn't cost in double dummy play at ordinary single dummy the story can be different. So I agree with you, even if none of the above situations apply it may be completely "rational" to duck in tempo just because they might. On personal note, my best wishes for a full and speedy recovery. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 5 21:32:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25AVTt17902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:31:29 +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 f25AVIt17854 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:31:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ZsGl-000Nh8-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:31:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 01:56:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI References: <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman writes >There is one aspect of your answer, you call it A2 and B2, that I do not >understand yet. Perhaps this aspect varies by zones? I am sure you >understand ACBL rules better than I do, but I think the ACBL requires >immediate checking when it seems likely the opponents have failed to alert. >Would you also sanction South for asking about 2S under ACBL jurisdiction >too? If I was South, it would seem to me that either 2S should have been >alerted, or else East discovered a missing ace. In the ACBL, as I understand >it, if you fail to check for failures to alert in an obvious case like this, >then you are partly to blame. Even North should check if South does not. When attention is drawn to an irregularity it is everyone's responsibility to call the Director immediately everywhere in the world. But they don't! Dependent on circumstance, redress is often available anyway. >The right to understand their system is absolute, and this overrides >considerations of UI, does it not? As South, I would have asked too. OK, but do you need to know now? Of course, I would ask before the opening lead. > Would >you also sanction North for later asking about the meaning of the spade bid >if South did not? No, because he needs to know. You may always ask if you need to know - but you may not ask for your partner's benefit. > When something strange occurs, I thought directors >emphsized finding out what was going on at the earliest possible moment and >calling the director if an irregularity, such as a failure to alert, >occured. Thus, if N and S are perfect bridge citizens, they check at the >earliest possible moment and call the director when there has been a failure >to alert. In any zone, I would think. Sure, but as I said above, they often do not. >I also find the phrase "cannot possibly be thinking of bidding" confusing. >Are you saying that only those players thinking of bidding should ask >questions? No. However, you should not be asking for partner's sake, and this particular question is somewhat suspicious. Why does South want to know? For his defence? But why does he not ask before the opening lead 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 Mar 6 00:43:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25DgeO00494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 00:42:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f25DgOt00411 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 00:42:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ZvFk-000G0I-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:42:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:41:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <1DlZpiANIvo6Ewn0@asimere.com> <000701c0a51e$6cf0dba0$1b8c69d5@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <000701c0a51e$6cf0dba0$1b8c69d5@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000701c0a51e$6cf0dba0$1b8c69d5@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 1:55 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! > > >> In article , David Stevenson >> writes >> > >> > B32 -- W N E S >> > E/W KJT94 >> > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P >> > T98 3S P 4S X >> >AKJT43 Q2 AP >> >A83 ++ Q7652 >> >5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C >> >Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty >> > 98765 oriented: description later >> > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" >> > TMS A973 4Sx-1 >> > KJ42 >> > >> > North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as H + D. >She >> >said everyone does so where she plays. South agreed he had probably >got >> >it wrong. The description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". >> > >> > East-West said that: >> > >> >1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double of 3C >> >showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements of a double >of >> >3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to the doubt over the >meaning >> >of the double. >> >2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. >> >3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if he had >known >> >that it was not one of North's suits. >> > >> > So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? >> > >> 3Cx - 2. Result stands >> >What do you mean --Result stands? There were 2 questions. I provided 2 answers. >Table contract was 4S. >> >I would rule 4Cx - 3 >> >Anne > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |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 Mar 6 00:59:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25Dx6305007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 00:59:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f25Dwpt04950 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 00:58:53 +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 f25DwkW35400 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:58:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010305084150.00b6cb80@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, 05 Mar 2001 08:58:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@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 04:01 AM 3/4/01, Herman wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >(1) Should a revoke be considered a "wild, gambling or irrational" > > >action? I don't think so, but the consensus of BLML seems to be > > >otherwise, so let's assume it should be and go on... > > > > I think a revoke is an irrational action. This has considerable > > importance for England and Wales, since we have decided not to go with > > the interpretation of "irrational, wild or gambling" but to stick with > > "wild or gambling" since we feel at least a possibility of the double > > shot should be involved before we deny redress. In other words, in > > England/Wales the correct ruling is NS+170 for both sides. > >A pair are in 3Sp, after a misexplanation from opponents. >They make 10 tricks. The rest of the room is in 4Sp, making >11. >What is the AS ? +420 or +450 ? >Most of us would say +420. (after seeing that nothing >special happened in the play that would not have happened in >the game contract). >But David's line of reasoning seems to suggest that the AS >is and should always be +450. I don't think so. Herman's scenario suggests that nobody did anything that would warrant withholding redress due to self-inflicted damage (i.e. nothing "wild or gambling", nor "irrational", nor "an egregious error"), so David's reasoning would not affect the adjudication in this case. When self-inflicted damage is not an issue, we simply apply L12C2 in the most straightforward way, adjusting the pair's score to "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". So unless there's a reason to believe that they would have played 4S differently from how they played 3S, nothing in David's argument precludes us from concluding that +420 is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. For the English interpretation to matter, the loss of the trick against 3S would have had to have been "irrational" (the result of a revoke, for example), and the adjudicated contract would have to be one in which the play might be expected to have gone differently (as, for example, if we determine that they would have arrived in 3NT, rather than 4S, absent the misexplanation). Then, according to David, we would not further adjust the result (in 3NT) to reflect the loss of a trick due to irrational play, as we might have under some other SO's interpretation. 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 Mar 6 01:40:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25EdXb16573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 01:39:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f25Ed9t16497 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 01:39:11 +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 f25Ed3I81514 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:39:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010305092442.00b68c90@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, 05 Mar 2001 09:38:46 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] How to adjust - a summary In-Reply-To: <3AA20E09.A800841A@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:42 AM 3/4/01, Herman wrote: >In all these cases, I shall assume NS are the OS, and all >scores are positive for them. The infraction is assumed, we >are only dealing with the adjustment. > >I want to introduce five scores. We should always assume >that this means a contract and a result, not just a score, >but I will only deal with the numerical value. > >I am assuming we know how to deal with calculation. If I >write "NOs get A1" we know what to do. > >The five scores : > >A1 and A2 are the possible scores before the infraction. I >am using only two possible scores, all reasonings and >formulae are easily adapted to more than 2 possible >outcomes. >A1 is smaller than A2 (for NS) > >B1 and B2 are the possible scores after the infraction. >B1 is smaller than B2. > >C is the actual table result. In normal cases, C will be >equal to B1 or B2, but in some cases, due to NOs action not >related to the infraction, the result can differ from the >"possible" scores. >I believe you realise the type of things I am referring to. > >I want to introduce 2 probabilities: > >p is the probability that, without the infraction, the >result will be A2 as opposed to A1. >q is the same probability for B2. > >We can then define : > >A = (1-p) A1 + p A2 >and >B = (1-q) B1 + q B2 > >as the "expected outcome" before and after the infraction. >Of course these calculations are done in MP or IMP or even >VP, not in bridge scores. > >Some people would say that there is only damage when B > A, >but I am not assuming this as gospel. > >Let's consider the different cases from the point of the >actual table result : > >CASE 1 : C = B2 >(the NOs have not played to the best possible result). > >Since we are calling B2 a possible result, standard practice >is to not count this against NOs. > >case 1a) B2 > A2. > >The NOs is clearly damaged. > >The AS will be A1, A2 or A, depending on the zone and the >value of p. >(standard case) > >case 1b) A2 > B2 > B > A > >The NOs is probably damaged. > >If the AS would be A1 or A in the case above, I am assuming >it will still be that in this case. If the AS above would >be A2, then there will be no correction. > >case 1c) A2 > B2 > A > B > >The NOs were in the possibility to get a better score >because of the infraction, and did not take this >possibility. > >I believe we would agree not to give any compensation. > >case 1d) A > B2 > A1 > >The NOs got a better score than they might have expected >without the infraction, and could have done even better. > >I certainly think there is no need for compensation. > >case 1e) A1 > B2 > >(included for completeness) > >We will not hear from this table again. NOs are not >damaged. Unless p is large enough that A1 is not a sufficiently likely outcome to be incorporated into the adjustment (ignoring for the moment the distinction between "likely" and "at all probable"), A2 (the better of the two scores the OS might have achieved absent the infraction) should have no effect whatsoever on a L12C2 ruling, so the only criterion for damage is the relative values of B2 and A1. Therefore it would seem that we should adjust in all of the above cases execept (1e). And even if we're using L12C3, shouldn't the comparison be between B2 and A rather than B and A? That could change the ruling in (1d), but not in (1c). 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 Mar 6 02:11:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25FAmB22740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:10:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f25FAIt22730 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:10:19 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id QAA10525; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:09:57 +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 QAA10098; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:09:53 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010305161227.008b3d10@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 Mar 2001 16:12:27 +0100 To: David J Grabiner , Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <01030213122405.00187@psa836> References: <200103021857.KAA01918@mailhub.irvine.com> <200103021857.KAA01918@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 13:10 2/03/01 +0000, David J Grabiner wrote: >On Fri, 02 Mar 2001, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> This is helpful. I just wanted to point out that _The Bridge World_ >> has sometimes used "marionette" for certain similar types of bids, but >> I'm not sure exactly what they mean. I assume it's sort of related to >> a "puppet", but I don't know what the difference is between a "puppet" >> and a "marionette". Does anyone else know what this means? > >A marionette is a puppet which is controlled by strings held from >above, usually a piece of wood which can be tilted to make the >marionette dance. "Puppet", in a general context, is usually something >held in or on a hand. AG : 'Puppet' was once only the name ford a specific kind of Stayman. The name has been extended to all kinds of bids that ask partner to bid the step just above, not necessarily holding the suit, but intending to describe the hand further - a space-saving device. lebensohl, good-bad and Wolff signoff are good examples. *Those* are now sometimes called 'marionette' ; the idea is that one manipulates partner, who bids what one asked him to 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 Tue Mar 6 02:28:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25FRlY25019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:27:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f25FRMt24945 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:27:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA27677; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:23:15 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id QAA24773; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:26:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010305162923.0088a940@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 Mar 2001 16:29:23 +0100 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! 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 00:56 5/03/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > B32 -- W N E S > E/W KJT94 > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P > T98 3S P 4S X >AKJT43 Q2 AP >A83 ++ Q7652 >5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C >Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty > 98765 oriented: description later > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" > TMS A973 4Sx-1 > KJ42 > > North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as H + D. She >said everyone does so where she plays. South agreed he had probably got >it wrong. The description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". > > East-West said that: > >1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double of 3C >showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements of a double of >3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to the doubt over the meaning >of the double. >2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. >3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if he had known >that it was not one of North's suits. > > So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? AG : man bites dog. I'm along the less severe. North had the information that partner had misunderstood. If he hadn't, and if West had passed, he would have taken South's pass at its face value - I don't have any preference between H and D. That the pass is to play would be a strange agreement indeed. He would probably have taken out to 3D. So, please tell me, why should the final contract be 5C ?? If you think 3C means both 'no prefenrence' and 'club tolerance', then the final contract will be 3CX. Thus, I could understand 3CX -2 (or perhaps -3), but 5C, why, why ? when you are doubled in 3C, do you play 5C ? Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically gets a bottom and the interdiction to play the convention for the remaining of the event. It was seriously considered by Belgian authorities that Ghestem would be 'yellow', the highest degree of artificiality. It seems that Ghestem is, by far, the convention that creates the most MI and systemic errors. 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 Mar 6 02:52:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25FpZs28121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:51:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f25Fp5t28109 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:51:07 +1100 (EST) Received: by XION with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:48:34 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:48:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically gets a bottom >and the interdiction to play the convention for the remaining of the event. This was done a few years ago, but after some heavy protests, this practice was discontinued. Although we very much want to punish all Ghestem errors, the Laws don't allow us to. We can punish misinformation and we can punish the use of unauthorised info, but if the offenders do neither, then we can only weep with the opponents. So the Dutch aren't "right" anymore. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 6 03:42:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25GgBD29427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 03:42:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@loki.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f25Gfmt29421 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 03:41:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 14Zy3K-0003RX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:41:42 +0000 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:41:42 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > At 00:56 5/03/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > B32 -- W N E S > > E/W KJT94 > > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P > > T98 3S P 4S X > >AKJT43 Q2 AP > >A83 ++ Q7652 > >5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C > >Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty > > 98765 oriented: description later > > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" > > TMS A973 4Sx-1 > > KJ42 > > > > North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as H + D. She > >said everyone does so where she plays. South agreed he had probably got > >it wrong. The description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". > > > > East-West said that: > > > >1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double of 3C > >showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements of a double of > >3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to the doubt over the meaning > >of the double. > >2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. > >3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if he had known > >that it was not one of North's suits. > > > > So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? Peter Gill wants to adjust to 5C X minus some number but Alain Gottcheiner remarks that South's pass of 3C just shows no preference. My sympathies are with Alain but I'd like to ask N-S their methods before deciding. One perfectly good method is to play pass by South as clubs and redouble as no preference and if that's what they play then I'd adjust to 5C X minus a lot. I'm a Ghestem player but it does cause a large number of misbid/ misexplanation situations, so I'm happy with those countries that automatically adjust after a 2 suited misbid/misexplanation. Assuming this was not played under those rules, I'm not entirely sure that there was damage as a result. 4S is a perfectly reasonable spot, making a lot of the time spades aren't 5-0. If West passes 3C X then North will bid 3D (assuming as above that pass just shows no preference). Did the misexplanation cause E-W to miss their stiff 3NT (played by E)? Perhaps it did; it seems to me to be a more attractive bid on the auction that would develop after West passes and North bids 3D than on the existing one, where West seems likely to be short in clubs and East only has one stop. So I'd adjust to 3NT (probably +1, since the defence might slip up to allow an overtrick). >From the evidence David presents I trust we'd all rule misexplanation rather than misbid. Though N-S don't seem exactly sure what their system really is, we wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt, would we? Oh, and to address the E-W point about North's UI suggesting the diamond lead; I don't think it does. --- I always wanted to be someone - I guess I should have been more specific -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 6 03:51:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25GpJN29667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 03:51:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f25Gont29651 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 03:50:51 +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 14ZyC2-000B04-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:50:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:21:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >David Stevenson revealed: > >>The definitions from the Orange book are: >> >>Puppet bid >> An artificial bid, requesting partner to bid the next denomination up, >>but not necessarily showing that suit (compare with definition of >>Transfer bid). >> >>Relay bid >> A response made to allow partner to bid again and indicating nothing >>about the denomination bid. >> >>Transfer bid >> An artificial bid, showing length in a specific suit (often the next >>suit up) and usually expecting partner to bid that suit. > >I suspect that the authors of the Orange book were terminologically >careless when writing these definitions. Thankyou very much! > IMHO, *bid* should be replaced >by *call*. For example, in my partnership's Symmetric Relay system, if >the oppos are foolish enough to intervene, then I often describe pard's >Pass as a *relay, asking me to describe my hand further*. Funnily enough, that does not make the Definitions wrong. In England, people talk about Transfer bids. They do not talk about Transfer calls. When I wrote those definitions I was trying to define terms in common usage, not terms that people never use. They should use them? Good, but they don't. >Furthermore, when pard's relay continuation is a Double, then I describe >it as a *non-forcing relay, asking me to describe my hand further*. (I >am allowed to leave the double in, depending on vulnerability, and whether >I hold unexpected length/strength in the oppos' suit.) I will refuse to >adopt the suggestion that such a Double should be misleadingly described >as *pass or correct*, merely because of a Humpty-Dumpty definition that >all relays must be forcing. Since it is [as you have pointed out so charmingly] a definition of a Relay Bid are you sure that your double comes under this definition? I did not write the Orange book for nit-pickers. I wrote it as a helpful way of explaining certain things. It is helpful even if nowhere in the book does it say "Relay call": this includes the use of a double which [as everyone knows] may be passed. The Orange book does not need over-attention to this sort of detail: it is not designed for BLML to fight over "looseness in the wording". -- 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 Mar 6 06:33:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25JVRL03566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 06:31:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f25JV6t03557 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 06:31:07 +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 OAA00581 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:31:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA28034 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:31:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 14:31:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103051931.OAA28034@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] constructive Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Furthermore, when pard's relay continuation is a Double, then I describe > it as a *non-forcing relay, asking me to describe my hand further*. Don't you think it would be better to say what partner's double shows instead of what it asks you to do? I do like the "non-forcing" part of the description. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 6 06:43:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25JhBL03807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 06:43:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f25Jh4t03803 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 06:43:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.14.201] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14a0sW-00052T-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 05 Mar 2001 19:42:44 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 19:41:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > B32 -- W N E S > E/W KJT94 > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P > T98 3S P 4S X > AKJT43 Q2 AP > A83 ++ Q7652 > 5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C > Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty > 98765 oriented: description later > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" > TMS A973 4Sx-1 > KJ42 > > North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as H + D. She > said everyone does so where she plays. South agreed he had probably got > it wrong. The description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". I don't think that this is an adequate explanation, but certainly in the original version of Ghestem, 3C shows the red suits. Thus, South has misinformed his opponents. But... > East-West said that: > > 1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double of 3C > showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements of a double of > 3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to the doubt over the meaning > of the double. Not really. The fact that they don't know what they are doing over a double of 3C showing hearts and clubs (which is a perfectly legal method) led to doubt over the meaning of the double. That is not North-South's fault, though pretty much everything else is, including the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease. > 2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. Well, North might have some UI. It would depend on what the meaning of South's pass was in their methods. If it showed clubs, and a willingness to play there opposite the red suits, then North might not only have led a club, but have supported partner's clubs. But if pass was just "you pick a red suit", then North would obviously lead a diamond, as he did. This point, of course, is crucial, and it would be very helpful to know what North-South's agreement as to South's pass actually was. > 3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if he had known > that it was not one of North's suits. Of course he would. But this is not much of an argument; if West did not know what East's double meant, he ought to have done. However, removing it is certainly not "wild or gambling action" that would lead to EW's being denied redress from damage should this point require consideration. > So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? Has there been an infraction? Yes, for South has misexplained 3C. Has there been damage, and if so, what damage? Well, let us assume that the infraction had not occurred. We must be careful here, for the infraction is only the misexplanation; assuming that the infraction had not occurred is *not* the same as assuming that South knew what North had got and could inform EW accordingly. We assume, in other words, that EW know that North has the red suits, but South thinks that North has the round suits (but, following the de Wael view for the moment, East-West do not know - because they are not allowed to know - that South thinks that North has the round suits). What would have happened? Would East have doubled 3C? Of course he would, since that is what he did. Would South have passed? Yes, for that is what he did - remember, we are assuming that it is only East-West (and North) who know that North has the red suits. Would West have passed out 3C doubled? We don't know, for we don't know what South's pass meant. There is a very good chance, however, that if West knows that North has the red suits, he will pass 3C doubled "for the moment". Would North have removed 3C doubled? We don't know, for we don't know what South's pass meant. If it meant "pick a red suit", then North might bid 3D, passed by East, raised by South, and... Or, North might bid 3H (his better red suit), doubled by East, corrected by South, and... If, on the other hand, South's pass meant "I want to play 3C doubled even though I know you have the reds", then 3C doubled would be the final contract, down several. [In practice, of course, North is bound to bid diamonds, for he knows from the explanation that South knows he has hearts, so there is no point in bidding them. It should also be mentioned for completeness that in all of these scenarios, South will have heard North remove 3C doubled; it will then become AI to him that he has forgotten the methods.] In short, I would not rule at all until I knew what North-South's agreement was as to the pass of 3C doubled. As to how the Director ruled, I neither know nor care. If he knew his business, he would have enquired the meaning of South's pass, and the information would have been supplied to us. Since it has not been, then either: he did not ask, in which case he is a jackass and his ruling is of no interest to me; or he did ask, and the information has been withheld from us in order to create a more interesting problem, in which case the problem-setter is a... well, he is someone whom I am very glad to see back on BLML, and to whom despite previous differences I send my very best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery. 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 Mar 6 09:31:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25MUMu23356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:30:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f25MU9t23299 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:30:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14a3UP-000EUj-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 22:30:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:58:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem 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 Martin Sinot writes >alain gottcheiner wrote: > >>Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically gets a bottom >>and the interdiction to play the convention for the remaining of the event. > >This was done a few years ago, but after some heavy protests, this >practice was discontinued. Although we very much want to punish all >Ghestem errors, the Laws don't allow us to. We can punish misinformation >and we can punish the use of unauthorised info, but if the offenders do >neither, then we can only weep with the opponents. So the Dutch aren't >"right" anymore. We discussed this in the EBU, and I was in a minority of one in supporting special anti-Ghestem rules. But make no mistake: they are legal. Under L40D the SO has wide powers to regulate conventions, and a regulation based on L40D such as any error in Ghestem leads to a full board penalty or a ban from playing it within three months of getting it wrong are 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 Tue Mar 6 09:31:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25MUMx23362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:30:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f25MU9t23300 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:30:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14a3UQ-000EUk-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 22:30:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 18:01:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem 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 Ian D Crorie writes >Peter Gill wants to adjust to 5C X minus some number but Alain >Gottcheiner remarks that South's pass of 3C just shows no preference. >My sympathies are with Alain but I'd like to ask N-S their methods >before deciding. One perfectly good method is to play pass by >South as clubs and redouble as no preference and if that's what >they play then I'd adjust to 5C X minus a lot. From what I gathered of the players I doubt that they play redouble over double to mean anything at all. As for a pass of 3Cx, a lot of medium players might understand it to show clubs - but they will in fact often pull it when it reaches them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 6 12:04:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2613S004388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:03:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2612rt04373 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:02:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.252.44.183]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010306010245.TKNL285.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 01:02:45 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c0a5d9$69d7a3c0$b72cfc3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 01:04:35 -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: Monday, March 05, 2001 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! > Martin Sinot writes > >alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > >>Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically gets a bottom > >>and the interdiction to play the convention for the remaining of the event. > > > >This was done a few years ago, but after some heavy protests, this > >practice was discontinued. Although we very much want to punish all > >Ghestem errors, the Laws don't allow us to. We can punish misinformation > >and we can punish the use of unauthorised info, but if the offenders do > >neither, then we can only weep with the opponents. So the Dutch aren't > >"right" anymore. > > We discussed this in the EBU, and I was in a minority of one in > supporting special anti-Ghestem rules. > > But make no mistake: they are legal. Under L40D the SO has wide > powers to regulate conventions, and a regulation based on L40D such as > any error in Ghestem leads to a full board penalty or a ban from playing > it within three months of getting it wrong are perfectly legal. > I would be interested to know David, is the EBU L&EC well represented by working TDs. I can understand players of varying standards being loathe to be so dogmatic about regulating the disruption of just one convention in this manner. However, I find it hard to believe that working TDs, as you and I,and the rest of this group, are not so fed up with the problems it creates as not to want to make any inability to handle it - illegal. I would apply this to any 2 suited overcall, in any circumstance. In the WBU National Open Pairs last week end, I had 4 "Ghestem gone wrong" rulings, not all the same hand. They are so time consuming, so difficult to get absolutely right, that we have got to the stage where even the culprits are sufficiently embarrassed as to be very happy with a short sharp 30%/60% next board please. Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 6 12:51:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f261phl05329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:51:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f261pYt05325 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:51:35 +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 MAA04812 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:55:06 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 06 Mar 2001 12:44:28 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] St Paul's Cathedral To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:48:32 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/03/2001 12:49:15 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk According to myth, when King Charles II first saw St Paul's Cathedral, he told the architect (Christopher Wren), that it was, "Awful and artificial". In modern times this would be defined as an insult. But in seventeenth century English, Charles was stating that he was filled with awe, and that he admired Wren's clever artifice. (Christopher Wren was buried in St Paul's Cathedral, under a plain slab of stone. Its inscription was, "If you seek my monument, look around you.") The meaning of words depends on the time and place of their use. In Bridge, the word "artificial" also has an unusual meaning, when used as an adjective before "adjusted score". To have sensible rulings by ACs and TDs (and to have more frequent lawful actions by players), terminology has to be understood. There is less misunderstanding when words are unique to bridge (eg claiming on a *cross-ruff*), than when normal English words are given special meanings (eg the popular description of a *call* as a *bid*). Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 6 13:30:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f262ToH06104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:29:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f262TOt06093 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:29:25 +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 f262PWT23479 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:25:33 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:26:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson wrote: > We discussed this in the EBU, and I was in a minority of one in >supporting special anti-Ghestem rules. > > But make no mistake: they are legal. Under L40D the SO has wide >powers to regulate conventions, and a regulation based on L40D such as >any error in Ghestem leads to a full board penalty or a ban from playing >it within three months of getting it wrong are perfectly legal. Legal, perhaps. Wise? I don't know. I would suppose that the rationale is that such a regulation would cause players who wish to use Ghestem to make sure they know the ramifications. It seems to me more likely it would lead to a de facto ban. I suppose that too is legal under 40D - but I wonder if it's good for the game. 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/AwUBOqRLYb2UW3au93vOEQKqpgCgqRbQgi3sQm25MFB/MVUVggey/ZUAoL6H OfUpDeYSztl8/+NoVEuKj7mq =BoiD -----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 Mar 6 13:39:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f262dAJ06264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:39:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f262cxt06260 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:39:00 +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 f262Zmw12052 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:35:49 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001301c0a5d9$69d7a3c0$b72cfc3e@vnmvhhid> References: <001301c0a5d9$69d7a3c0$b72cfc3e@vnmvhhid> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:38:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anne Jones wrote: >I can understand players of varying standards being loathe to be so >dogmatic about regulating the disruption of just one convention in this >manner. However, I find it hard to believe that working TDs, as you and >I,and the rest of this group, are not so fed up with the problems it >creates as not to want to make any inability to handle it - illegal. It has been said, here in the US, that laws are not made for the convenience of the police. I would think that neither should the laws of bridge be made for the convenience of TDs. :-) BTW, I am not a TD (yet :) - so as you say, perhaps that's why I feel that way. 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/AwUBOqRNu72UW3au93vOEQKRjwCfYbRbPJi+Ofqz9uMethYW4g2Jry4AoKCI uoX5c2iDKjnoU42YTuR/SpBy =ohsS -----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 Mar 6 16:02:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26526v09875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 16:02:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2651rt09811 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 16:01:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt8hu.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.162.62]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA03854 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 00:01:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:03:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson kindly explained: > Jerry Fusselman writes > > >There is one aspect of your answer, you call it A2 and B2, that I do not > >understand yet. Perhaps this aspect varies by zones? I am sure you > >understand ACBL rules better than I do, but I think the ACBL requires > >immediate checking when it seems likely the opponents have failed to alert. > >Would you also sanction South for asking about 2S under ACBL jurisdiction > >too? If I was South, it would seem to me that either 2S should have been > >alerted, or else East discovered a missing ace. In the ACBL, as I understand > >it, if you fail to check for failures to alert in an obvious case like this, > >then you are partly to blame. Even North should check if South does not. > > When attention is drawn to an irregularity it is everyone's > responsibility to call the Director immediately everywhere in the world. > > But they don't! > > Dependent on circumstance, redress is often available anyway. I guess what I meant to assert is that the very best time for North-South to ask about a possible failure to alert is when it is first demonstrated to be highly likely. South should ask about 2S immediately after that surprising 3N bid. "Please explain 2 spades." Heck, as I understand it, the ACBL requires that you check this right away or might forfeit your rights. The director might be able to minimize the damage. Am I wrong? > > >The right to understand their system is absolute, and this overrides > >considerations of UI, does it not? As South, I would have asked too. > > OK, but do you need to know now? Of course, I would ask before the > opening lead. > > > Would > >you also sanction North for later asking about the meaning of the spade bid > >if South did not? > > No, because he needs to know. You may always ask if you need to know > - but you may not ask for your partner's benefit. > Yes yes yes, I know you may not ask for partner's benefit. We got that part, yes! But there is no law anywhere whatsoever that says that "need to know" is a prerequisite to asking about there system. You can ask with zero points! "Need to know" is a fallacy. I offer evidence below: > > When something strange occurs, I thought directors > >emphsized finding out what was going on at the earliest possible moment and > >calling the director if an irregularity, such as a failure to alert, > >occured. Thus, if N and S are perfect bridge citizens, they check at the > >earliest possible moment and call the director when there has been a failure > >to alert. In any zone, I would think. > > Sure, but as I said above, they often do not. > > >I also find the phrase "cannot possibly be thinking of bidding" confusing. > >Are you saying that only those players thinking of bidding should ask > >questions? > > No. However, you should not be asking for partner's sake, and this > particular question is somewhat suspicious. Why does South want to > know? For his defence? But why does he not ask before the opening lead > then? You gave one bad reason for West asking. (But there seems no way to know if West's motive was bad.) I give two good reasons: 1. Clear up a likely MI situation while the director can still do something about it. 2. You should often ask when you do not need to know. There should be no relationship between asking and needing to know. There is case law on this, and you were on the expert panels in both cases!: Case #25, Orlando NABC (ACBL), 1998 the title is "I Ask Only When I Need To Know" In this case, West doubled a conventional bid without asking what it meant, and on the next round he doubled after asking what bids meant. This provided UI to partner, East, who knew the second double was less penaltyish, and pulled it. Everyone agreed on the UI, and the double got "unpulled" and the doubled contract was deemed to have made---to West's disadvantage. So asking only when you need to know can lead to UI to your detriment. Case #18, Vancouver NABC (ACBL), 1999. Here I will just give some excerpts---I think it is quite interesting and instructive: Summary of the facts: Responding to a Committee member's question North said the reason she asked about the 3 bid was that she was "just curious." She said it made no difference to her bid....The Committee briefly discussed the impropriety of the just-out-of-curiosity query about the meaning of the auction by North, but decided not to let it influence their decision..... Editor Rich Colker: "Then, this group of refugees from a canceled Mensa meeting...had the unmitigated gall to talk about reproaching poor North for asking about the Alerted 2NT bid, as if she caused E/W's problem. Forget about the ACBL's policy of "If you don't ask about an Alerted call, then you won't get any sympathy from us when you later find out that it meant something other than what you expected." Forget about the basic principle that players should always ask (or at least ask randomly) about Alerted calls if they don't want to tell their partner when they're interested in an auction and when they're not. Grrrr. Arrgh!" Panelist Ron Gerard "And even to consider accusing North of impropriety because she asked about an Alert that seemed incomprehensible to her was close to libelous. Sometimes the opponents notice whether you're interested in their auction and use that to their advantage, even at the top levels." -------------------------------------- So "need to know" is a bad criterion for asking. It seems to me the advice to bridge players should be: 1. As you said, do not ask for partner's benefit if you understand what is going on. 2. Do *not* ask _only_ when you need to know. That passes UI to partner and needless benefit to opps. Instead ask systematically or randomly. 3. When there is clear evidence of MI, call the director immediately. Is this right world-wide, or is it, perhaps, only an ACBL peculiarity? Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 6 21:21:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26AKPF17066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:20:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26AJjt17046 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:19:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-70-191.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.70.191]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09026 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:19:14 GMT Message-ID: <002001c0a627$043213e0$bf46063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: [BLML] .quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo .. (was St. P) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:18:44 -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 "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: . ------------ \x/ -------------- > > To have sensible rulings by ACs and TDs .............. > ........... terminology has to be understood. > +=+ It is part of their education that they read the definitions in the law book. In the main subscribers to blml are also 'educated', possibly from choice. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 6 21:21:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26AKOa17065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:20:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26AJjt17047 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:19:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-70-191.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.70.191]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09001 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:19:12 GMT Message-ID: <001f01c0a627$03610840$bf46063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] St Paul's Cathedral Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 07:56:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Proper words in proper places" (Dean Swift) <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] St Paul's Cathedral > (Christopher Wren was buried in St Paul's Cathedral, > under a plain slab of stone. Its inscription was, "If you > seek my monument, look around you.") > +=+ "Si monumentum requiris, circumspice" - words placed in the Cathedral by his son. We think Sir Christopher is still there. ~ 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 Mar 6 21:54:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26AsBo18557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:54:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Arxt18542 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:54:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14aF6I-000LYy-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:53:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:15:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@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 >In short, I would not rule at all until I knew what North-South's >agreement was as to the pass of 3C doubled. As to how the Director >ruled, I neither know nor care. If he knew his business, he would have >enquired the meaning of South's pass, and the information would have >been supplied to us. Since it has not been, then either: he did not ask, >in which case he is a jackass and his ruling is of no interest to me; or >he did ask, and the information has been withheld from us in order to >create a more interesting problem, in which case the problem-setter is >a... well, he is someone whom I am very glad to see back on BLML, and to >whom despite previous differences I send my very best wishes for a >speedy and complete recovery. Yes, I can see that the question should have been asked. In fact it was not, but from everything else that was told to the Director I am confident that the correct answer would have been "no agreement". -- 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 Mar 6 22:06:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26B66820756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:06:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26B5ht20650 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:05:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-234.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.234]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f26B5XS21874 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:05:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 11:53:36 +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] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@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: > > > >This is important, in the light of several other rulings. > > I think we realised that, as well. > > >A pair are in 3Sp, after a misexplanation from opponents. > >They make 10 tricks. The rest of the room is in 4Sp, making > >11. > >What is the AS ? +420 or +450 ? > >Most of us would say +420. (after seeing that nothing > >special happened in the play that would not have happened in > >the game contract). > >But David's line of reasoning seems to suggest that the AS > >is and should always be +450. > > Eh? We do not look at other scores, as TDs are trained not to, so how > would we have the faintest idea what the rest of the room is doing? Well, consider "the rest of the room are in +450" as meaning "there are always 11 tricks on the hand". Shortcut ! > And > how is this relevant anyway? Whether IWoG [RoW] WoG [EBU] egregious > [ACBL] action [1] is present is a decision taken by looking at the hand > and hearing the arguments. > > [1] Just couldn't resist the acronyms game! > put them in your list ! Anyway. The idea "you must continue to play bridge" is just another way towards saying - don't try for double shots, please. I never did understand why the EBU wanted to remove the I from IWoG. Now when it seems that revokes are among what is intended, I am not certain as to whether it is a good thing that they did. After all, this is a huge step in a sideways direction. I can understand it when you are trying to be lenient towards NOs. Bad bridge is not a problem, when you are placed in a situation that you shouldn't be in. The sentence is "you should continue to play bridge", not "good bridge". But bidding 7NT after an infraction is not Wild, or even Gambling, it's plain Irrational. I always thought the three words went together, not that they were three separate classes of action, easily classified. After all, the answer to the question "would you consider 7NT wild, gambling or irrational ?" is "YES". > -- > 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/ -- 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 Mar 6 22:06:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26B60F20730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:06:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26B5it20657 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:05:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-234.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.234]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f26B5eS21961 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:05:40 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA372BF.B08C649@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 12:04:31 +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] Wrinkle at the club References: <01C0A4C2.1F1A4580.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > > Put me in the 'West has conceded camp' 68B. > > South gets all three tricks if East does not immediately object. > South will draw trumps and get all three tricks even if East does immediately object. > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > Me too. South was on lead and thinking, and West spoiled this process. Even if East can "object immediately", play has suffered. South is then entitled to a rethink, and would probably get it right. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Mar 6 23:37:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26CbC115251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:37:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Cait15158 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:36:46 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA27577; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:36:25 +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 NAA02678; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:36:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010306133855.00807e70@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 Mar 2001 13:38:55 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f26Camt15174 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:53 5/03/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >I can understand it when you are trying to be lenient >towards NOs. Bad bridge is not a problem, when you are >placed in a situation that you shouldn't be in. The >sentence is "you should continue to play bridge", not "good >bridge". AG : I couldn't agree any more. Making an inferior bid is bridge. Bridge is a game of errors. No smilie here. This means that there is less difference between ACBL and RotW (1) formulations than it seems at first sight. For a bid or card not to be bridge, the degree of error should be considerable. Verging on the irrational. This is also why I didn't like to split hairs and the damage (2) in the case of the UI-then-revoke that we handled some days ago. Revoking is -alas- part of bridge ; it is not a wild or gambling action, mainly because it isn't intentional ; it is not irrational, because rationality means acting well according to the context, irrationality means acting wrongly according to the context, and a revoke it out-of-context. Something like a koân. (1) No, RotW does not mean 'rolling on the walls'. Would be pretty difficult. (2) I love zeugmata. Best 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 Mar 7 00:12:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26DBnj25629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 00:11:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26DBNt25562 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 00:11:24 +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 f26DBIF16803 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:11:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@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, 06 Mar 2001 08:10:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-Reply-To: <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> References: <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:03 AM 3/6/01, Jerry wrote: >So "need to know" is a bad criterion for asking. It seems to me the advice >to bridge players should be: > >1. As you said, do not ask for partner's benefit if you understand what is >going on. >2. Do *not* ask _only_ when you need to know. That passes UI to >partner and >needless benefit to opps. Instead ask systematically or randomly. I consider myself an ethical player (admittedly, doesn't everyone?), but my habit is not to ask every time, to ask randomly, nor to ask only when I need to know the answer. I ask whenever I don't know the answer and don't find it on my opponent's CC, and keep my mouth shut when I do. Is that inappropriate? As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect your own calls? 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 Mar 7 01:14:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26EDsq06618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:13:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26EDTt06538 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:13:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt9re.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.167.110]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA15547 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:13:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00dc01c0a647$dc456c80$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:15:12 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau just wrote > At 12:03 AM 3/6/01, Jerry wrote: > > >So "need to know" is a bad criterion for asking. It seems to me the advice > >to bridge players should be: > > > >1. As you said, do not ask for partner's benefit if you understand what is > >going on. > >2. Do *not* ask _only_ when you need to know. That passes UI to > >partner and > >needless benefit to opps. Instead ask systematically or randomly. > > I consider myself an ethical player (admittedly, doesn't everyone?), > but my habit is not to ask every time, to ask randomly, nor to ask only > when I need to know the answer. I ask whenever I don't know the answer > and don't find it on my opponent's CC, and keep my mouth shut when I do. > > Is that inappropriate? > > As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know > what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect > your own calls? > > > 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 > Hello Eric, I have to agree with you 100% on this. I meant to imply that I never ask when I already know. To clarify my meaning, I would say that you ask systematically. You certainly are not asking based on the likelihood that it will affect your call. By the way, Eric, does APL stand for Iverson's APL---the programming language? Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 7 01:38:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26EcJj13611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:38:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26Ec9t13565 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:38:11 +1100 (EST) Received: by XION with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:35:26 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:35:22 +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 David Stevenson wrote: >Martin Sinot writes >>alain gottcheiner wrote: >> >>>Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically gets a bottom >>>and the interdiction to play the convention for the remaining of the >>>event. >> >>This was done a few years ago, but after some heavy protests, this >>practice was discontinued. Although we very much want to punish all >>Ghestem errors, the Laws don't allow us to. We can punish misinformation >>and we can punish the use of unauthorised info, but if the offenders do >>neither, then we can only weep with the opponents. So the Dutch aren't >>"right" anymore. > > We discussed this in the EBU, and I was in a minority of one in >supporting special anti-Ghestem rules. > > But make no mistake: they are legal. Under L40D the SO has wide >powers to regulate conventions, and a regulation based on L40D such as >any error in Ghestem leads to a full board penalty or a ban from playing >it within three months of getting it wrong are perfectly legal. Of course they are legal. But no such (written) rules existed at the time they were punishing every Ghestem error. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 7 01:49:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26EnLe16225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:49:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26EnAt16178 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:49:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id PAA09871; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:45:14 +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 PAA23866; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:48:46 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010306155121.0082ed10@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 Mar 2001 15:51:21 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@127.0.0.1> References: <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:10 6/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 12:03 AM 3/6/01, Jerry wrote: > >>So "need to know" is a bad criterion for asking. It seems to me the advice >>to bridge players should be: >> >>1. As you said, do not ask for partner's benefit if you understand what is >>going on. >>2. Do *not* ask _only_ when you need to know. That passes UI to >>partner and >>needless benefit to opps. Instead ask systematically or randomly. > >I consider myself an ethical player (admittedly, doesn't everyone?), >but my habit is not to ask every time, to ask randomly, nor to ask only >when I need to know the answer. I ask whenever I don't know the answer >and don't find it on my opponent's CC, and keep my mouth shut when I do. > >Is that inappropriate? AG : to the contrary, it's very good on principle. But most of the exponents of this theory apply it imperfectly, that is, if they have no interest in knowing, they don't check the CC, thus don't ask. This sometimes gives away UI. If you do otherwise, if you really ask every time you don't know, that's perfect. >As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know >what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect >your own calls? AG : not really. However, if I acted that way, I'd feel necessary to tell the opponents, as a pre-alert, 'we often ask just to know'. Meaning, don't try and take inferences from our interest (which they are, remember, allowed to do). 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 Mar 7 01:55:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26EtbO17810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 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 claret.4js-emea.com (mailgate.4js-emea.com [193.195.72.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26Et2t17720 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:55:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from PAMH (pamh.4js-emea.com [10.0.0.212]) by claret.4js-emea.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA32032 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:54:56 GMT From: "Pam Hadfield" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] MI & UI Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:54:49 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@127.0.0.1> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 06 March 2001 13:11, Eric Landau wrote: > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI > ..snip.. > > As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know > what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect > your own calls? Why on earth would anyone feel the need to ask these questions *during the auction* when doing so might pass UI to partner or clarify the ops system for them? Surely those question would be more appropriate at the end of the auctions before the opening lead - after all, isn't that why we all say "any questions partner?" when we lead face down? Pam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 7 03:06:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26G5Ft19721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:05:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26G4ht19717 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:04:45 +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 f26G1Ub02740 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:01:31 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> References: <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:59:29 -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 11:03 PM -0600 3/5/01, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >So "need to know" is a bad criterion for asking. It seems to me the advice >to bridge players should be: > >1. As you said, do not ask for partner's benefit if you understand what is >going on. >2. Do *not* ask _only_ when you need to know. That passes UI to partner and >needless benefit to opps. Instead ask systematically or randomly. >3. When there is clear evidence of MI, call the director immediately. > >Is this right world-wide, or is it, perhaps, only an ACBL peculiarity? It occurs to me to wonder whether, if I don't ask because I know what it means, and I expect partner does not, what are the chances I'll later get an adverse ruling - and conversely, if I *do* ask when I don't need to know, what are those chances? (I am still trying to teach partner that when she doesn't know, *she* should ask, but she hates to do that. Well, not entirely - she used to *never* ask; now she does at least some of the time.) 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/AwUBOqUKlb2UW3au93vOEQL3LgCdFbm+sFm3PdSKAsYjEPL+lEwKrnwAoKdv 1Hq5pdq9czstqwsKMlb3w1wa =/GX5 -----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 Mar 7 03:07:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26G7lM19744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:07:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26G7et19740 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:07:41 +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 f26G7aO01688 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:07:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306104628.00b5d570@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, 06 Mar 2001 11:07:21 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010306155121.0082ed10@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@127.0.0.1> <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:51 AM 3/6/01, alain wrote: >At 08:10 6/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > > >I consider myself an ethical player (admittedly, doesn't everyone?), > >but my habit is not to ask every time, to ask randomly, nor to ask only > >when I need to know the answer. I ask whenever I don't know the answer > >and don't find it on my opponent's CC, and keep my mouth shut when I do. > > > >Is that inappropriate? > >AG : to the contrary, it's very good on principle. But most of the >exponents of this theory apply it imperfectly, that is, if they have no >interest in knowing, they don't check the CC, thus don't ask. This >sometimes gives away UI. If you do otherwise, if you really ask every time >you don't know, that's perfect. I do, because I believe in "table feel", the ability most top-level players have to draw subtle psychological inferences about their opponents' holdings from their inadvertent extraneous actions (the right to do so is explicitly granted by L73D1). This is largely a matter of gauging the opponents' reactions to their partner's calls during the auction. It's a lot easier to find inferences in those reactions if you know what the calls mean. The difference between a bridge lawyer and a real bridge player is that when an opponent takes a long huddle, the BL's instinctive first thought is "how can I use the rules to gain from his huddle?", while the BP's instinctive first thought is "what does his huddle tell me about his hand?". > >As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know > >what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect > >your own calls? > >AG : not really. However, if I acted that way, I'd feel necessary to tell >the opponents, as a pre-alert, 'we often ask just to know'. Meaning, don't >try and take inferences from our interest (which they are, remember, >allowed to do). This may be a N.A.-Europe difference. I suspect from reading BLML that Europeans are inclined more towards "ask only when you need to know", which avoids giving potential false inferences to the opponents, while Americans are inclined more towards "ask always" or "ask randomly", which avoids giving UI in the form of such inferences to partner. Here it would be considered rather peculiar to pre-alert, kind of like warning the opponents not to take inferences from your attempts to keep your tempo constant. 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 Mar 7 03:19:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26GIXN19819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:18:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f26GIEt19814 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:18:15 +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 f26GI9O02606 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:18:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306110804.00b5ac20@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, 06 Mar 2001 11:17:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] MI & UI In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@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 3/6/01, Pam wrote: >Why on earth would anyone feel the need to ask these questions *during >the auction* when doing so might pass UI to partner or clarify the ops >system for them? Surely those question would be more appropriate at the >end of the auctions before the opening lead - after all, isn't that why >we all say "any questions partner?" when we lead face down? Because one is trying, perhaps instinctively, even subconsciously, to pick up useful clues from one's opponents' reactions to the auction as it evolves. If an opponent's call seems to give their partner a problem, for example, it's a heck of a lot easier to work out (whether consciously or instinctively) the nature of that problem if you know what the call meant. Sometimes the cues are so subtle as not to be consciously noticeable even as one comes to some vague awareness of what they might mean. By the time one gets to "any questions partner?" they are long gone from memory, if indeed they ever found their way there in the first place. 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 Mar 7 03:21:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26GLbU19842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:21:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@loki.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26GLUt19838 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:21:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 14aKDF-0005Bq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Mar 2001 16:21:25 +0000 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: RE: [BLML] MI & UI To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" In-Reply-To: Pam Hadfield's message of Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:54:49 -0000 Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 16:21:25 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > On 06 March 2001 13:11, Eric Landau wrote: > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI > > > ..snip.. > > > > As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know > > what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect > > your own calls? > > Why on earth would anyone feel the need to ask these questions *during > the auction* when doing so might pass UI to partner or clarify the ops > system for them? Surely those question would be more appropriate at the > end of the auctions before the opening lead - after all, isn't that why > we all say "any questions partner?" when we lead face down? > > Pam I wouldn't leave all questions until before the opening lead because I might want to enter the auction. I don't want to only ask questions when I might enter the auction because this gives opponents unfair (IMHO) information about my hand. I've long had serious reservations about sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of the Orange book (http://www.ebu.co.uk/ob9a.pdf). It seems to me that table prescence is a more valuable technique for a declarer playing under OB regulations than in other places. All you need do, as in a dispute that arose in a recent Gold Cup match, is play a legal but unusual system where a large % of your calls are alerted. Then wait for opponents to ask and draw the obvious conclusions. Why not raise your record on 2 way finesses to 75% or even more? You ask after three alerted bids and find opps are in an artificial game forcing sequence: Oops! You don't ask after 3 alerted bids and they've stolen the hand on a combined 16 count: Oops! I'm not by any means against unusual systems or convention experimentation, but there is a legimate problem here with full disclosure. And convention cards need only cover so much; transfer opener's rebids, responder's rebid relays and the like don't have any convenient boxes. Full system notes available to the opponents might solve the problem but are you really telling me that that will waste less time than asking randomly or all the time? --- I always wanted to be someone - I guess I should have been more specific -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 7 03:54:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26GiAB22166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:44:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26GhVt22090 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:43:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26740; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:43:25 -0800 Message-Id: <200103061643.IAA26740@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:54:49 GMT." Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:43:24 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Pam Hadfield wrote: > On 06 March 2001 13:11, Eric Landau wrote: > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI > > > ..snip.. > > > > As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know > > what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect > > your own calls? > > Why on earth would anyone feel the need to ask these questions *during > the auction* when doing so might pass UI to partner or clarify the ops > system for them? Why on earth would anyone feel the need to adopt a practice---i.e. asking when you "need" to know and not asking when you don't need to know---that GUARANTEES passing UI to partner and gratuitous information to the opponents? If you adopt this practice, then all three opponents know that when you ask a question, you have something interesting; and conversely, all three opponents know that when you don't ask a question in a case where you're unlikely to know, then you don't have something interesting. Why on earth would anyone think this system is a better system for avoiding UI than "always asking"??!?!? -- 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 Mar 7 04:09:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26GxPZ24958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:59:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Gwpt24877 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:58:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA19258; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:49:43 +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 RAA29363; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:53:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010306175551.007cf100@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 Mar 2001 17:55:51 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306104628.00b5d570@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20010306155121.0082ed10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@127.0.0.1> <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:07 6/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >This may be a N.A.-Europe difference. I suspect from reading BLML that >Europeans are inclined more towards "ask only when you need to know", >which avoids giving potential false inferences to the opponents, while >Americans are inclined more towards "ask always" or "ask randomly", >which avoids giving UI in the form of such inferences to partner. Here >it would be considered rather peculiar to pre-alert, kind of like >warning the opponents not to take inferences from your attempts to keep >your tempo constant. AG : will you believe me, this I've already made. And I also believe in telling he opponents (only when it's true, of course) : 'my partner is a near-beginner. Don't take his/her tempi into account' 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 Mar 7 05:00:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26I0RU06112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:00:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26I0Kt06108 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:00:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhv3.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.227]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15614 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:00:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002701c0a667$45904920$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <01c09c49$3ced3c60$0100007f@localhost> <002f01c09c58$53b99420$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:00:03 -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 First off, welcome back David!. I hope that you are recovering from your hospital stay, and are feeling better each day. You were greatly missed in your absence. I'm delighted to see you back and posting again, as I learn a great deal from your comments and value them highly. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows > Hirsch Davis writes > > >> Bidding goes > >> > >> W N E S > >> ============= > >> <> <> <> 1N > >> 2C 2N P 3C > >> P P X P > >> 3S P 4C P > >> 4S 5C X end > > >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? > > Doubles in competitive situations in England tend not to be for > penalties. > If I ever get to play in England, I'm going to bid a LOT, particularly if opponents are going to give me the three level unmolested. I'll skip the bridge analysis, as much of it depends on the actual agreements the players had. The real question I was trying to get at was whether or not pass by W, with far more defense than his original bid promised, was an LA after the double by E. If so, would the E hesitation demonstrably suggest that pulling the double would be more successful than leaving it in? If their agreements are such that pass is not an LA, then my argument is of course immaterial. 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 Mar 7 05:40:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26IeCu13644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Ie0t13583 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:01 +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 14aMNA-000LgP-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:39:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:00:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <001301c0a5d9$69d7a3c0$b72cfc3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001301c0a5d9$69d7a3c0$b72cfc3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes >I would be interested to know David, is the EBU L&EC well represented by >working TDs. It has been alleged that we have too many. Certainly Roy Higson said that working TDs should not be on it at all. But there are two TDs amongst seven elected members [David Martin and myself, both reading BLML]. One of the other members was a National TD many years ago [Steve Barnfield, former reader of BLML]. That leaves four others, Martin Pool, David Burn [both of them BLML readers] and Paul Spencer, Richard Fleet. The Chief TD of the EBU, Max Bavin, is an ex officio member. The other ex officio members are, I believe, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the EBU [the current incumbents do not attend]. I understand that board members and Vice-Presidents may attend: in practice this means Grattan Endicott [BLML reader] and Gerard Faulkner [who does not have email!!!!], both former L&EC Chairmen. I think three working TDs is enough, but even if it wasn't, *all* the other people mentioned are used as AC Chairmen. Of course the WBU L&EC contains 100% Working TDs! >I can understand players of varying standards being loathe to be so >dogmatic about regulating the disruption of just one convention in this >manner. However, I find it hard to believe that working TDs, as you and >I,and the rest of this group, are not so fed up with the problems it >creates as not to want to make any inability to handle it - illegal. I >would apply this to any 2 suited overcall, in any circumstance. >In the WBU National Open Pairs last week end, I had 4 "Ghestem gone >wrong" rulings, not all the same hand. They are so time consuming, so >difficult to get absolutely right, that we have got to the stage where >even the culprits are sufficiently embarrassed as to be very happy with >a short sharp 30%/60% next board please. -- 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 Mar 7 05:40:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26IeCC13648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Ie0t13582 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:01 +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 14aMN9-000LgO-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:39:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:49:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI References: <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman writes >I guess what I meant to assert is that the very best time for North-South to >ask about a possible failure to alert is when it is first demonstrated to be >highly likely. South should ask about 2S immediately after that surprising >3N bid. "Please explain 2 spades." Heck, as I understand it, the ACBL >requires that you check this right away or might forfeit your rights. The >director might be able to minimize the damage. Am I wrong? No, and I am trying to mount an effort to tell more people how important it is to call the Director in MI cases. But while you may lose some rights by not calling [there should be no redress for any call that could still have been changed, for example] you do not lose all rights. [s] >So "need to know" is a bad criterion for asking. It seems to me the advice >to bridge players should be: > >1. As you said, do not ask for partner's benefit if you understand what is >going on. >2. Do *not* ask _only_ when you need to know. That passes UI to partner and >needless benefit to opps. Instead ask systematically or randomly. >3. When there is clear evidence of MI, call the director immediately. > >Is this right world-wide, or is it, perhaps, only an ACBL peculiarity? The point I am trying to make is that asking randomly is fine [well, not recommended in England, Wales, and a few other places, but certainly fine in the ACBL] what is dangerous is asking in one precise situation: [1] Where you have no need to know, AND [2] There is evidence that partner has failed to understand It is the two together that worry 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 Wed Mar 7 05:40:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26IeaM13770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26IeMt13712 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:22 +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 14aMNb-000B2g-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:40:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:37:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 References: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <200102222010.MAA08741@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes > I make no comment on Herman's comments, but as a matter of information >Herman made his comments based on what you have read, but without seeing >my comments or the L&EC's comments. He had no other source of >information. > > By the way, I should like to thank him for doing this. I asked for >volunteers in a number of places, I only got two, and the other one >failed to produce anything because of personal problems. I am very >pleased that Herman saved everyone from only seeing my comments! We have received many comments. It would not be suitable at this late stage to change the Commentary, of course, but a revised version will go up within 24 hours. The changes are: [1] Asking for feedback about the hands to go to the Editor not the L&EC Secretary [2] Correcting the suit symbols in Herman's comments [**] [3] Adding editorial notes to conventions not well known outside England [4] Adding a publishing history and copyright notice [5] Correcting the explanation of the relay in Case 6 [**] Herman used GillSansBridge which I do not have so his suit symbols appeared to me as [ ] { } and several got mis-translated. -- 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 Mar 7 05:50:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26Inmi15805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:49:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26InXt15743 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:49:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01483 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:55:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103061855.NAA01483@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306104628.00b5d570@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@127.0.0.1> <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010306104628.00b5d570@127.0.0.1> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 13:55:57 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6 March 2001 at 11:07, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:51 AM 3/6/01, alain wrote: > >> >As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know >> >what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect >> >your own calls? >> >>AG : not really. However, if I acted that way, I'd feel necessary to tell >>the opponents, as a pre-alert, 'we often ask just to know'. Meaning, don't >>try and take inferences from our interest (which they are, remember, >>allowed to do). It's just a different set of inferences. And they're pretty easy to work out, with practice. And yeah, there are definately pairs who ask for partner's benefit, and pairs who ask and pass inferences. Picking them out isn't hard. > >This may be a N.A.-Europe difference. I suspect from reading BLML that >Europeans are inclined more towards "ask only when you need to know", >which avoids giving potential false inferences to the opponents, while >Americans are inclined more towards "ask always" or "ask randomly", >which avoids giving UI in the form of such inferences to partner. The argument on the other side is that, like "random signals", partner is very likely to work out the patterns in random asks; and UI will be passed in the form of such inferences. Having said that, I wouldn't like to have to play bridge in a place where I am required to listen to the opponents speak "German"[1], and not be able to follow along if I wish. It is a game of full disclosure, after all. In defence of my "random" patterns, I always ask: - Any alert of 1C or 1D opener. If the response is "could be short", I further ask "how short?" or "under what circumstances?" - In fact, any alerted opening call. I almost always will need to know what this means to have any reasonable auction; and I won't be giving the opponents clarifyers on their *opening bids* (or if I am, they have more problems than I can fix by a few questions). - Any alerted call over our 1NT opener. - style of weak twos and preempts. - Any call for which our defence may be different depending on the meaning (cue-bid of our fit suit; Alerted 2C overcall of 1NT; overcall of our SAF bid) - Any of the calls that were made Non-Alertable in the "tweak" to the Alert Chart (1H-1NT - is it likely to have a 4-card spade suit? (Flannery); 1M-1NT(forcing); 2C - minimum number of clubs? What bids show extra values?) I tend to not ask if: - it looks like they don't know what they're doing. - they're defending against one of our "strange" conventions (Transfer overcall of 1NT; Raptor 1NT overcall; "One-under" double of Splinter), or we've interfered in one of their commonly uninterrupted auctions (Flannery, for instance; or strong 2C). - Their CC gives me enough information for now (2S-2NT!; 3D!; if the CC says Ogust, all I need during the auction is that 3D is completely artificial.) After the auction, of course... provided, of course, the call doesn't come under the "always ask" sequences, above. I also tend not to ask of an Alerted call that I already know for certain. Yes, it nails me sometimes when a pair I know suddenly switches systems (and definately nails me when my partner both doesn't know - despite playing against it just as long as I - and can't be arsed to ask herself). This comes in even if it's an "always ask". Given this setup, I ask whenever I feel like my interests are served best by asking. What can I say? Of course, when I've agreed to play "Nuttin'" against a particular system; I follow the rules (don't ask, treat as natural, no matter what it means, until the end of the auction). >Here >it would be considered rather peculiar to pre-alert, kind of like >warning the opponents not to take inferences from your attempts to keep >your tempo constant. > UI transmittal is definately different around here. Though I am going to call the TD before answering the question "1H is 4 or 5?" again. Strangely enough, the only two times I've been asked this, I have been a) playing EHAA, so yeah, it's frequently 4; b) finding asker with a heart stack; and most importantly c) got a CC saying 4+ in the obvious spot on the table by asker's left hand (and pd has one by asker's partner's left hand). I don't know what these things signify. Having said that, I also wonder why one shouldn't be able to attempt to reduce UI by asking in a consistent manner. However, as you can tell from the rest of my comment, it happens about as well as consistent tempo. Michael. [1] I can pay attention to German, and catch context one time in 5 or 10 or so. About the same as when I'm listening to a Magic Diamond auction. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 7 06:07:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26J7KZ20350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 06:07:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26J79t20307 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 06:07:10 +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 OAA01795 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:13:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103061913.OAA01795@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:13:36 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6 March 2001 at 14:54, "Pam Hadfield" wrote: > >On 06 March 2001 13:11, Eric Landau wrote: >> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI >> >..snip.. >> >> As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know >> what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect >> your own calls? > >Why on earth would anyone feel the need to ask these questions *during >the auction* when doing so might pass UI to partner or clarify the ops >system for them? Because I'm allowed to? Because the amount of UI partner receives is lessened by not only asking when my hand gives me a reason to? Because on the odd occasion I might have a reason to that I don't yet know, and if I wait until the end of the auction, it's too late? Because there are certain situations where the meaning of my call - including Pass - depends on the meaning of their call; and I have no way to know whether my hand has a reason to take action until I know? Because the Alert Chart (ACBL) says, in bold print, "WHEN IN DOUBT ABOUT THE MEANING OF AN ALERTED CALL, ASK, DO NOT ASSUME!" (emphases in the original)? Because *these* opponents I trust to have their system down (a rarity, I will agree)? Because knowing what's going on when it's going on allows you a better chance of getting the "table feel" inferences right? Having said all of that, I don't always ask (see other post), especially if it looks like the opponents are in a more complicated auction than they are capable of getting right. >Surely those question would be more appropriate at the >end of the auctions before the opening lead - after all, isn't that why >we all say "any questions partner?" when we lead face down? > Well, often they are more appropriate then. Sometimes they're not. Conversely, why let them have a free ride in their auction when you can interfere - if you understand? And the reason we all ask "questions, partner?" is because the most common single question is "yeah. Why (TF) are you leading?" (or as in yesterday, "aren't you declaring?") 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 Mar 7 06:39:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26JcKV28483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 06:38:20 +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 f26Jc0t28392 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 06:38:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from hadfields.demon.co.uk ([194.222.188.60]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14aNHM-00059E-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 19:37:53 +0000 From: pam To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 19:37:49 +0000 Message-ID: References: <200103061643.IAA26740@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200103061643.IAA26740@mailhub.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f26JcCt28441 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:43:24 -0800, you wrote: > >Pam Hadfield wrote: > >> On 06 March 2001 13:11, Eric Landau wrote: >> > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >> > Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI >> > >> ..snip.. >> > >> > As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know >> > what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect >> > your own calls? >> >> Why on earth would anyone feel the need to ask these questions *during >> the auction* when doing so might pass UI to partner or clarify the ops >> system for them? > >Why on earth would anyone feel the need to adopt a >practice---i.e. asking when you "need" to know and not asking when you >don't need to know---that GUARANTEES passing UI to partner and >gratuitous information to the opponents? I thought we were talking about information that would affect your bid (rather than pass)? If an answer affects my bid then I am bidding after the question and no UI is passed. If the answer affects whether I bid or not then if I pass partner has UI and must bend over backwards not to use it. In practice I don't ask if some answers mean I will pass where others will mean I bid. Yes, I do occasionally lose out - I can live with that. This does of course mean that my partners cannot guarantee that my failure to bid means I cannot have a hand that would have bid had I known what was going on. >If you adopt this practice, >then all three opponents know that when you ask a question, you have >something interesting; and conversely, all three opponents know that >when you don't ask a question in a case where you're unlikely to know, >then you don't have something interesting. This doesn't actually happen. If I need to know then then the only information passed to anyone is that the bid I make after the question may well have been different had the answer been different. If I don't ask it either means I know what the bid means and/or the bid does not affect my bidding whatever it means and I am content to wait till the auction is over to find out and plan my defense. Where is the UI there? The problem only comes when a question is asked and then the questioner passes. I am afraid I am a bit of a cynic in that I find it hard to believe that anyone really asks randomly or all the time. > Why on earth would anyone >think this system is a better system for avoiding UI than "always >asking"??!?!? I don't. Always asking is a perfectly reasonable system - as long as the people who say they always ask actually do. My experience tells me this is rare (I've never yet played anyone that *always* asked, perhaps I should play more). Pam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 7 09:14:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26ME4K13309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:14:05 +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 f26MDst13265 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:13:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA25718 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:13:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA00606 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:13:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:13:44 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103062213.RAA00606@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > even the culprits are sufficiently embarrassed as to be very happy with > a short sharp 30%/60% next board please. I don't doubt the culprits are happy to get 30%, but are the NOS happy with a mere 60%? It seems to me that botching a two-suited overcall is a quick way to a zero unless you use UI to recover or the MI causes the opponents to "recover" for you. (Yes, it's easy to construct exceptions. We have seen some on BLML.) Nevertheless, Anne's broader point is well-taken. If a particular type of infraction is causing big problems, maybe it's time to look for a quick way to adjust. (I haven't seen problems around here, but maybe that's because the two-suited overcalls aren't popular.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 7 14:40:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f273cbi00172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:38:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f273cSt00127 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:38:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaughr.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.66.59]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA25771 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:38:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00be01c0a6b8$0c30ec60$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3A964564.547FFD94@village.uunet.be> <000a01c09def$7f8f0d80$0200000a@mindspring.com> <874FMXGAjpo6Ewl9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:38:16 -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: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? > Hirsch Davis writes > DWS: > > Why might a player do so? Because he thinks he might as well take his > twelve, and not risk two off. Or [and the present case sounds like this > to me] he just wants to get the hand over with as quickly as possible, > because he does not have the stomach for playing grands off an ace. He > is going to ream his pd out anyway. > > We know what sort of player he is because of his claim. Are you > suggesting that if he had not claimed he would have done anything but > grab the opening lead and play a spade? I think not. > Yep. I'm suggesting that he added up all of his tricks, came up with 12 (he doesn't believe in bad breaks), and would have run off his cards in order believing he would run out of gas at the end. If he managed to unblock the clubs, he'd make. If there had been any indication that he intended to take a spade trick, or if there was a bridge reason to play a spade at trick two on that particular layout, I'd rule the other way. I don't think I can (or should) rule that the player makes an irrational play based on his presumed state of mind. If we open that door, we're going to see some truly bizarre claim rulings. Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 7 20:38:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f279bbP06747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:37:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f279bRt06689 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:37:29 +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 14aT2A-000DMs-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:46:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:28:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows References: <01c09c49$3ced3c60$0100007f@localhost> <002f01c09c58$53b99420$0200000a@mindspring.com> <002701c0a667$45904920$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <002701c0a667$45904920$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 > >First off, welcome back David!. > >I hope that you are recovering from your hospital stay, and are feeling >better each day. You were greatly missed in your absence. I'm delighted to >see you back and posting again, as I learn a great deal from your comments >and value them highly. Ta muchly. >> Doubles in competitive situations in England tend not to be for >> penalties. >If I ever get to play in England, I'm going to bid a LOT, particularly if >opponents are going to give me the three level unmolested. I didn't say we don't pass such doubles, just that they are not for penalties. -- 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 Mar 7 20:56:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f279uO311351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:56:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f279tvt11276 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:55:59 +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 14aTMD-000FZR-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 02:07:17 +0000 Message-ID: <4F864ABudZp6EwuC@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 02:05:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: [BLML] random minors. MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Where are we on opening 1C or 1D randomly (5 card majors) if we intend to rebid in NT? ie we can open 1C or 1D with equal probability on 3325 or 3352, or any other balanced shape. Suppose we have a parity algorithm which partner doesn't know? This "guarantees" randomness. We can seal the algorithm with a trusted 3rd party. Suppose we psyche our own algorithm, depending on who the oppo are? Is the TD entitled to the algorithm? EBU? rest of the World? This is a real question from a YC player, who has impeccable ethics and a penchant for bizarre systems. -- 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 Mar 7 21:11:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27ABjZ14557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:11:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27ABct14553 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:11:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-67-52.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.67.52]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09500 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:11:05 GMT Message-ID: <000f01c0a6ef$0cd8c020$34437bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <001301c0a5d9$69d7a3c0$b72cfc3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:11:15 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! > Anne Jones writes > > >I would be interested to know David, is the EBU L&EC > > well represented by working TDs. > > It has been alleged that we have too many. Certainly > Roy Higson said that working TDs should not be on it > at all. > +=+ Roy opposed the presence of his junior TDs on a committee that was telling him what he should do or that might review his actions. I do not believe that members of a single fraternity should dominate such a committee. +=+ > > But there are two TDs amongst seven elected > members [David Martin and myself, both reading > BLML]. One of the other members was a National TD > many years ago [Steve Barnfield, former reader of > BLML]. That leaves four others, Martin Pool, > David Burn [both of them BLML readers] and Paul > Spencer, Richard Fleet. > > The Chief TD of the EBU, Max Bavin, is an ex officio > member. The other ex officio members are, I believe, > the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the EBU [the > current incumbents do not attend]. I understand that > board members and Vice-Presidents may attend: in > practice this means Grattan Endicott [BLML reader] > and Gerard Faulkner [who does not have email!!!!], > both former L&EC Chairmen. > +=+ receive papers, attend, speak, but not vote +=+ > > I think three working TDs is enough, but even if it > wasn't, *all* the other people mentioned are used > as AC Chairmen. > > Of course the WBU L&EC contains 100% Working > TDs! > > >I can understand players of varying standards > >being loathe to be so dogmatic about regulating > >the disruption of just one convention in this > >manner. However, I find it hard to believe that > >working TDs, as you and I,and the rest of this group, > >are not so fed up with the problems it creates as > >not to want to make any inability to handle it - illegal. > > +=+ This demonstrates exactly why I think it wrong to allow TDs to 'take over' such a committee. The comfort of TDs should not supplant the interests of players. +=+ > > > >I would apply this to any 2 suited overcall, in any > >circumstance. In the WBU National Open Pairs last > >week end, I had 4 "Ghestem gone wrong" rulings, not > >all the same hand. They are so time consuming, so > >difficult to get absolutely right, that we have got to > >the stage where even the culprits are sufficiently > >embarrassed as to be very happy with a short sharp > >30%/60% next board please. > +=+ Am I understanding that the suggestion is to give an artificial adjusted score when the players have obtained a result and this is favourable to the non-offending side? If so, this does not strike me as being in the interests of bridge. On the other hand, I believe it would be reasonable to review the powers of regulating authorities, should they wish to provide redress for damage to opponents resulting from a misbid of such a convention. I offer no opinion here on the desirability of such powers, other than to remind readers of the Geneva Ruling of the WBF Executive that the restriction in Law 80F does not apply to regulations made under other Laws (a ruling that validates, for example, the prohibition of use of any convention with One No Trump openers that may lack, say, ten HCP) and therefore a regulatory power exists to attach any condition whatsoever to permission for the use of a given convention. ~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 Mar 7 22:07:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27B5pu16352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:05:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f27B5ct16298 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:05:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-82.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.82]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f27B5TS27182 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:05:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA4D286.202C47C9@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 13:05:26 +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] Ghestem again! References: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@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, as usual, a lot, and it all makes sense. Except for one remark, I think. > > > Has there been an infraction? Yes, for South has misexplained 3C. Has > there been damage, and if so, what damage? Well, let us assume that the > infraction had not occurred. We must be careful here, for the infraction > is only the misexplanation; assuming that the infraction had not > occurred is *not* the same as assuming that South knew what North had > got and could inform EW accordingly. We assume, in other words, that EW > know that North has the red suits, but South thinks that North has the > round suits Indeed, and the best analysis so far. Also, we must assume that North assumes that South knows he has the red ones (even if he doesn't) and then : > (but, following the de Wael view for the moment, East-West > do not know - because they are not allowed to know - that South thinks > that North has the round suits). What would have happened? What is the De wael point in this ? Isn't this a general principle ? A player is allowed to use the information that opponents are having a misunderstanding, but he is not entitled to that information. Behind screens, either opponent that receives, from North, the correct information (reds), would not know that South thinks it is rounds. Nor is he entitled to know this. > > Would East have doubled 3C? Of course he would, since that is what he > did. ehm ... why is it important what he did ? he got wrong information, remember ? I am not saying that he would not have doubled, but if there is some chance that he would not have done, 3C undoubled may well become a "likely" or "probable" outcome, which might be placed among the rest to determine what the AS is going to be. > Would South have passed? Yes, for that is what he did - remember, > we are assuming that it is only East-West (and North) who know that > North has the red suits. This is the only certainty that we have in all the case. We would even be able to assume that he would have passed 3Cl undoubled. > Would West have passed out 3C doubled? We don't > know, for we don't know what South's pass meant. I don't think that we shall ever know, and I believe we should assume both and see what happens. > There is a very good > chance, however, that if West knows that North has the red suits, he > will pass 3C doubled "for the moment". Indeed. > Would North have removed 3C > doubled? We don't know, for we don't know what South's pass meant. If it > meant "pick a red suit", then North might bid 3D, passed by East, raised > by South, and... Or, North might bid 3H (his better red suit), doubled > by East, corrected by South, and... If, on the other hand, South's pass > meant "I want to play 3C doubled even though I know you have the reds", > then 3C doubled would be the final contract, down several. There we are, Alain's adjustment again. > [In practice, > of course, North is bound to bid diamonds, for he knows from the > explanation that South knows he has hearts, so there is no point in > bidding them. This is a strange UI case. North knows partner thinks he has clubs and hearts, and he should not use that UI. If we assume that pass means "pick a red one" then passing is not a LA. Bidding diamonds and hearts are LAs Does the UI suggest diamonds or hearts ? Probably since partner has already chosen between hearts and clubs (by passing), the UI suggests that diamonds are better than hearts. So North should bid hearts. Thereby providing parter with possible UI. But bidding diamonds would also provide possible UI. Anyway, I believe that in actual fact, both the bidding of hearts and diamonds are "likely" (even if judged illegal afterwards) and so they shoul for the moment remain in the list of possible outcomes from which we shall later select the AS. > It should also be mentioned for completeness that in all > of these scenarios, South will have heard North remove 3C doubled; it > will then become AI to him that he has forgotten the methods.] > Provided that we judge passing by North to be not a LA. > In short, I would not rule at all until I knew what North-South's > agreement was as to the pass of 3C doubled. -- 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 Mar 7 22:07:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27B5TA16250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:05:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.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 f27B5Ht16192 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:05:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-82.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.82]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f27B5AS26956 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:05:11 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA4CB18.5655744E@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 12:33:44 +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] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010305084150.00b6cb80@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 04:01 AM 3/4/01, Herman wrote: > > > > >A pair are in 3Sp, after a misexplanation from opponents. > >They make 10 tricks. The rest of the room is in 4Sp, making > >11. > >What is the AS ? +420 or +450 ? > >Most of us would say +420. (after seeing that nothing > >special happened in the play that would not have happened in > >the game contract). > >But David's line of reasoning seems to suggest that the AS > >is and should always be +450. > > I don't think so. Herman's scenario suggests that nobody did anything > that would warrant withholding redress due to self-inflicted damage > (i.e. nothing "wild or gambling", nor "irrational", nor "an egregious > error"), so David's reasoning would not affect the adjudication in this > case. Well, David seems to suggest that even in cases of irrational play, there should be no other adjustment than +450. This is simply a case of (very) bad play, in which no-one would give anything else than +420. Would the EBL now be giving +450 ? > When self-inflicted damage is not an issue, we simply apply > L12C2 in the most straightforward way, adjusting the pair's score to > "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not > occurred". So unless there's a reason to believe that they would have > played 4S differently from how they played 3S, nothing in David's > argument precludes us from concluding that +420 is the most favorable > result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. > > For the English interpretation to matter, the loss of the trick against > 3S would have had to have been "irrational" (the result of a revoke, > for example), But you're argueing in the wrong direction ! Previously, we would have adjusted to +420. I'm citing a case where there is just bad play. David is talking of irrational play (which I deem to be even worse), and yet he is suggesting +450 there. So surely he should also give +450 in my example ! Surely you are not suggesting that if someone can reach only 10 tricks by merely bad, but not irrational play, then the AS should be +420 in any case ? There is certainly some middle ground between "most favourable that was likely" and "irrational". Certainly bad play will not affect the AS, and it is not IWoG or even merely WoG ? > and the adjudicated contract would have to be one in > which the play might be expected to have gone differently Yes, I am not talking of safety plays. Certainly there are cases where one would make 10 tricks in 3Sp, but 11 in 4Sp, even with optimal play from both sides. > (as, for > example, if we determine that they would have arrived in 3NT, rather > than 4S, absent the misexplanation). Then, according to David, we > would not further adjust the result (in 3NT) to reflect the loss of a > trick due to irrational play, as we might have under some other SO's > interpretation. > I agree that this is the case in 3NT. We do not regularly correct the AS in 3NT because of bad play in 4Sp. Maybe we should, but we don't. But that is not my point. The EBU do not correct for irrational play in 3NT, while the ROTW still would. OK. The EBU do not correct for irrational play in 4Sp either. No-one corrects for bad play in 3NT. Almost everyone corrects for bad play in 4Sp. Does this mean that the EBU corrects for bad play, but not for irrational play ? I'm playing 3Sp. I should have been in 3NT. Everyone makes 11 tricks. I revoke and make only 10. EBU AS : +460. I miscount trumps and make only 10. EBU AS : +460. I'm playing 3Sp. I should have been in 4Sp. Everyone makes 11 tricks. I revoke and make only 10. EBU AS : +450. I miscount trumps and make only 10. EBU AS : +420. Surely that cannot be right ! -- 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 Mar 7 22:07:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27B5de16292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:05:39 +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.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27B5Rt16244 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:05:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-82.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.82]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f27B5HS27093 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:05:17 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA4CD13.9E80CC88@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 12:42:11 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] How to adjust - a summary References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010305092442.00b68c90@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 04:42 AM 3/4/01, Herman wrote: > > > Unless p is large enough that A1 is not a sufficiently likely outcome > to be incorporated into the adjustment (ignoring for the moment the > distinction between "likely" and "at all probable"), OK, and passed over. > A2 (the better of > the two scores the OS might have achieved absent the infraction) should > have no effect whatsoever on a L12C2 ruling, so the only criterion for > damage is the relative values of B2 and A1. This is subject to debate. But it is of ACBL importance only. > Therefore it would seem > that we should adjust in all of the above cases execept (1e). And even > if we're using L12C3, which we would be > shouldn't the comparison be between B2 and A > rather than B and A? That could change the ruling in (1d), but not in > (1c). > That is precisely what we are discussing. Example : A player needs to chose between a heart and a spade lead. Spades turn out to be the better. There has been misinformation. The AC decides that with correct information, the spade lead has a certain probability. But with the (erroneous) actual information, a spade lead is far more likely. Yet the player chooses the heart lead. Do we adjust ? I don't ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 7 23:11:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27CAIa28025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 23:10:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f27CABt28021 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 23:10:12 +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 14aS6t-000PkI-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 00:47:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 00:46:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 References: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <200102222010.MAA08741@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > >[**] Herman used GillSansBridge which I do not have so his suit symbols >appeared to me as > > [ ] { } > This explains Herman's bidding? -- 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 Mar 7 23:56:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27CuDU28233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 23:56:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f27Cu4t28228 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 23:56:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA24068; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 13:52:08 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA02446; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 13:55:40 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010307135818.007d2980@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:58:18 +0100 To: "John Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <4F864ABudZp6EwuC@asimere.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:05 7/03/01 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >Where are we on opening 1C or 1D randomly (5 card majors) if we intend >to rebid in NT? ie we can open 1C or 1D with equal probability on 3325 >or 3352, or any other balanced shape. > >Suppose we have a parity algorithm which partner doesn't know? This >"guarantees" randomness. We can seal the algorithm with a trusted 3rd >party. AG : remember that such an algorithm could not use any extraneous info, like that provided by a watch. Subject covered in a somewhat raving 'movie' in TBW (1985 ?). >Suppose we psyche our own algorithm, depending on who the oppo are? AG : what the heck, if noboby knows what your algorithm is ... >Is the TD entitled to the algorithm? AG : I'd answer no. For, the normal way to inform him is to write it on the CC. If you do, of course this has no more interest, and is even illegal (partner now knows). Whatever is non-secret to the TD is to the opponents. Well, if you really do it randomly, the description 'random minor opening on balanced hand' describes your system, and that's what they demand. 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 Mar 8 00:09:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27D8iN00793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:08:44 +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 f27D8Jt00722 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:08:22 +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 f27D8EB43070 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:08:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010307075331.00b60570@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 Mar 2001 08:08:00 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] How to adjust - a summary In-Reply-To: <3AA4CD13.9E80CC88@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010305092442.00b68c90@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:42 AM 3/6/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > Therefore it would seem > > that we should adjust in all of the above cases execept (1e). And even > > if we're using L12C3, > >which we would be > > > shouldn't the comparison be between B2 and A > > rather than B and A? That could change the ruling in (1d), but not in > > (1c). > >That is precisely what we are discussing. > >Example : > >A player needs to chose between a heart and a spade lead. >Spades turn out to be the better. > >There has been misinformation. > >The AC decides that with correct information, the spade lead >has a certain probability. >But with the (erroneous) actual information, a spade lead is >far more likely. >Yet the player chooses the heart lead. >Do we adjust ? > >I don't ! But this is not an example of case (1d). Here, the same lead against the same contract with or without the MI yields the same result. So A1=B1 and A2=B2. Case (1d) occurs when A>B2>A1, which requires A2>B2. The AC here is not weighing probabilities. They are making a straightforward L12C2 ruling. They are simply deciding that, given the above, a spade lead absent the MI is not "at all probable", so no adjustment. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 00:15:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27DFcG02504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:15:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27DFUt02466 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:15:31 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA17900; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:15:26 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Mar 07 14:19:03 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01K0X2CGHJ1K0044PT@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:14:36 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:09:33 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:14:22 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , John Probst , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7CD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > At 02:05 7/03/01 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > >Where are we on opening 1C or 1D randomly (5 card majors) if > we intend > >to rebid in NT? ie we can open 1C or 1D with equal > probability on 3325 > >or 3352, or any other balanced shape. > > > >Suppose we have a parity algorithm which partner doesn't know? This > >"guarantees" randomness. We can seal the algorithm with a trusted 3rd > >party. > > AG : remember that such an algorithm could not use any > extraneous info, > like that provided by a watch. Subject covered in a somewhat > raving 'movie' > in TBW (1985 ?). > > >Suppose we psyche our own algorithm, depending on who the oppo are? > > AG : what the heck, if noboby knows what your algorithm is ... > > >Is the TD entitled to the algorithm? > > AG : I'd answer no. For, the normal way to inform him is to > write it on the > CC. If you do, of course this has no more interest, and is > even illegal > (partner now knows). Whatever is non-secret to the TD is to > the opponents. > Well, if you really do it randomly, the description 'random > minor opening > on balanced hand' describes your system, and that's what they demand. > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 00:28:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27DSIt05949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:28:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f27DSAt05919 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:28:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([213.105.140.224]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010307132802.RXYR285.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 13:28:02 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c0a70a$bdff2360$e08c69d5@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <001301c0a5d9$69d7a3c0$b72cfc3e@vnmvhhid> <000f01c0a6ef$0cd8c020$34437bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 13:30:13 -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 A worthy response Grattan. I did say that I thought that a standard way of dealing with the situation is what players, not just TDs, want. TDs are also players - this is a point often forgotten by other players.But the working TD is probably a lot more aware of the high incidence of such problems than is the average player. And no - I do not advocate adjusting the score where the NOs are not damaged :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! > > Grattan Endicott <=> > "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, > in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what > I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." > <==--==> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Stevenson > To: > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:00 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! > > > > Anne Jones writes > > > > >I would be interested to know David, is the EBU L&EC > > > well represented by working TDs. > > > > It has been alleged that we have too many. Certainly > > Roy Higson said that working TDs should not be on it > > at all. > > > +=+ Roy opposed the presence of his junior TDs > on a committee that was telling him what he should > do or that might review his actions. I do not believe > that members of a single fraternity should dominate > such a committee. +=+ > > > > But there are two TDs amongst seven elected > > members [David Martin and myself, both reading > > BLML]. One of the other members was a National TD > > many years ago [Steve Barnfield, former reader of > > BLML]. That leaves four others, Martin Pool, > > David Burn [both of them BLML readers] and Paul > > Spencer, Richard Fleet. > > > > The Chief TD of the EBU, Max Bavin, is an ex officio > > member. The other ex officio members are, I believe, > > the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the EBU [the > > current incumbents do not attend]. I understand that > > board members and Vice-Presidents may attend: in > > practice this means Grattan Endicott [BLML reader] > > and Gerard Faulkner [who does not have email!!!!], > > both former L&EC Chairmen. > > > +=+ receive papers, attend, speak, but not vote +=+ > > > > I think three working TDs is enough, but even if it > > wasn't, *all* the other people mentioned are used > > as AC Chairmen. > > > > Of course the WBU L&EC contains 100% Working > > TDs! > > > > >I can understand players of varying standards > > >being loathe to be so dogmatic about regulating > > >the disruption of just one convention in this > > >manner. However, I find it hard to believe that > > >working TDs, as you and I,and the rest of this group, > > >are not so fed up with the problems it creates as > > >not to want to make any inability to handle it - illegal. > > > > +=+ This demonstrates exactly why I think it wrong to > allow TDs to 'take over' such a committee. The comfort > of TDs should not supplant the interests of players. +=+ > > > > > >I would apply this to any 2 suited overcall, in any > > >circumstance. In the WBU National Open Pairs last > > >week end, I had 4 "Ghestem gone wrong" rulings, not > > >all the same hand. They are so time consuming, so > > >difficult to get absolutely right, that we have got to > > >the stage where even the culprits are sufficiently > > >embarrassed as to be very happy with a short sharp > > >30%/60% next board please. > > > +=+ Am I understanding that the suggestion is > to give an artificial adjusted score when the players > have obtained a result and this is favourable to the > non-offending side? If so, this does not strike me as > being in the interests of bridge. > On the other hand, I believe it would be reasonable > to review the powers of regulating authorities, should > they wish to provide redress for damage to opponents > resulting from a misbid of such a convention. I offer > no opinion here on the desirability of such powers, other > than to remind readers of the Geneva Ruling of the WBF > Executive that the restriction in Law 80F does not > apply to regulations made under other Laws (a ruling > that validates, for example, the prohibition of use of > any convention with One No Trump openers that may > lack, say, ten HCP) and therefore a regulatory power > exists to attach any condition whatsoever to permission > for the use of a given convention. ~Grattan~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 00:41:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27DfXo09158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:41:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27DfGt09095 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:41:17 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA10963; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:41:13 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Mar 07 14:44:17 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 <01K0X36YC16Y0044QQ@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:39:11 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:34:09 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:38:25 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , John Probst , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7CE@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 > >Is the TD entitled to the algorithm? I am not sure this to be an important issue for the development of bridge-laws and knowledge thereof. But who cares? > AG : I'd answer no. For, the normal way to inform him is to > write it on the > CC. If you do, of course this has no more interest, and is > even illegal > (partner now knows) I don't understand this reply. If you write the algorithme on your CC then still nobody should know the outcome when applying it, isn't it? So what is illegal about it? I'd answer 'yes'. Since randomness is a tricky subject the TD should be assured that this algorithme gives a 50% chance for diamonds and the rest for clubs, without partner being able to use the same input himself. Otherwise partner by experience makes a better guess for the suit than opponents. Another question: Assume that this pair uses a 'randomizer' which can be used by the opponents as well: when the number of beerglasses on the table is odd we open 1C otherwise 1D. Since 0 (zero) will never happen we don't have to discuss that problem. Can we demand from the opponents to draw their own conclusion or can we ask partner to tell opponents the outcome? I know that this example makes the use of this agreement meaningless, but that is not the issue. ton . Whatever is non-secret to the TD is to > the opponents. > Well, if you really do it randomly, the description 'random > minor opening > on balanced hand' describes your system, and that's what they demand. > 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 Mar 8 00:52:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27DqPb11961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:52:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f27Dq4t11893 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:52:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f27Dpxl78203 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:51:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010307083422.00ab9ee0@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 Mar 2001 08:51:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3AA4CB18.5655744E@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010305084150.00b6cb80@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:33 AM 3/6/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > At 04:01 AM 3/4/01, Herman wrote: > > > > >A pair are in 3Sp, after a misexplanation from opponents. > > >They make 10 tricks. The rest of the room is in 4Sp, making > > >11. > > >What is the AS ? +420 or +450 ? > > >Most of us would say +420. (after seeing that nothing > > >special happened in the play that would not have happened in > > >the game contract). > > >But David's line of reasoning seems to suggest that the AS > > >is and should always be +450. > > > > I don't think so. Herman's scenario suggests that nobody did anything > > that would warrant withholding redress due to self-inflicted damage > > (i.e. nothing "wild or gambling", nor "irrational", nor "an egregious > > error"), so David's reasoning would not affect the adjudication in this > > case. > >Well, David seems to suggest that even in cases of >irrational play, there should be no other adjustment than >+450. >This is simply a case of (very) bad play, in which no-one >would give anything else than +420. >Would the EBL now be giving +450 ? > > > When self-inflicted damage is not an issue, we simply apply > > L12C2 in the most straightforward way, adjusting the pair's score to > > "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not > > occurred". So unless there's a reason to believe that they would have > > played 4S differently from how they played 3S, nothing in David's > > argument precludes us from concluding that +420 is the most favorable > > result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. > >But you're argueing in the wrong direction ! >Previously, we would have adjusted to +420. >I'm citing a case where there is just bad play. >David is talking of irrational play (which I deem to be even >worse), and yet he is suggesting +450 there. So surely he >should also give +450 in my example ! > >Surely you are not suggesting that if someone can reach only >10 tricks by merely bad, but not irrational play, then the >AS should be +420 in any case ? >There is certainly some middle ground between "most >favourable that was likely" and "irrational". >Certainly bad play will not affect the AS, and it is not >IWoG or even merely WoG ? > > > (as, for > > example, if we determine that they would have arrived in 3NT, rather > > than 4S, absent the misexplanation). Then, according to David, we > > would not further adjust the result (in 3NT) to reflect the loss of a > > trick due to irrational play, as we might have under some other SO's > > interpretation. > >I agree that this is the case in 3NT. >We do not regularly correct the AS in 3NT because of bad >play in 4Sp. >Maybe we should, but we don't. >But that is not my point. > >The EBU do not correct for irrational play in 3NT, while the >ROTW still would. OK. >The EBU do not correct for irrational play in 4Sp either. > >No-one corrects for bad play in 3NT. >Almost everyone corrects for bad play in 4Sp. > >Does this mean that the EBU corrects for bad play, but not >for irrational play ? > >I'm playing 3Sp. >I should have been in 3NT. >Everyone makes 11 tricks. >I revoke and make only 10. EBU AS : +460. >I miscount trumps and make only 10. EBU AS : +460. > >I'm playing 3Sp. >I should have been in 4Sp. >Everyone makes 11 tricks. >I revoke and make only 10. EBU AS : +450. >I miscount trumps and make only 10. EBU AS : +420. > >Surely that cannot be right ! I think we're overcomplicating the issue again. The difference between the EBU and the RotW comes into play only when we're "adjusting" for self-inflicted damage *which might not have occurred absent the infraction*. The EBU does not, while the RotW might, award +430 in 3NT (or make some other type of adjustment) after declarer played 3S and revoked for +420, because the play would have gone quite differently, and declarer might well have not revoked. This is even clearer in the case in which declarer miscounted trumps; no matter how irrational it may have been to miscount trumps in 3S, he would not have miscounted trumps in 3NT! But when declarer, who has revoked (or miscounted trumps) in 3S, is given the result for 4S -- unless we have reason to believe that the play would have gone differently in 4S, with which Herman has no problem -- we simply rule that it is not at all likely that declarer would have played differently at 4S and make a straigtforward L12C2 ruling; the possibility of +450 at 4S is not a consideration. 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 Mar 8 02:58:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27Fw1g01846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 02:58:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f27Fvct01741 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 02:57:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14agJd-000PtF-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:57:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:38:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? References: <3A964564.547FFD94@village.uunet.be> <000a01c09def$7f8f0d80$0200000a@mindspring.com> <874FMXGAjpo6Ewl9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00be01c0a6b8$0c30ec60$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <00be01c0a6b8$0c30ec60$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 >Yep. I'm suggesting that he added up all of his tricks, came up with 12 (he >doesn't believe in bad breaks), and would have run off his cards in order >believing he would run out of gas at the end. If he managed to unblock the >clubs, he'd make. If there had been any indication that he intended to take >a spade trick, or if there was a bridge reason to play a spade at trick two >on that particular layout, I'd rule the other way. I don't think I can (or >should) rule that the player makes an irrational play based on his presumed >state of mind. If we open that door, we're going to see some truly bizarre >claim rulings. In my view, for a person who claims one off before seeing all of dummy, playing a spade at T2 is normal play. -- 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 Mar 8 02:58:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27FvqM01801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 02:57:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f27Fvct01740 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 02:57:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14agJd-000PtE-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:57:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:36:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <200103062213.RAA00606@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200103062213.RAA00606@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: "Anne Jones" >> even the culprits are sufficiently embarrassed as to be very happy with >> a short sharp 30%/60% next board please. > >I don't doubt the culprits are happy to get 30%, but are the NOS happy >with a mere 60%? It seems to me that botching a two-suited overcall is >a quick way to a zero unless you use UI to recover or the MI causes the >opponents to "recover" for you. (Yes, it's easy to construct >exceptions. We have seen some on BLML.) If we were to introduce such a regulation, presumably it would be the same as a fielded psyche: the board is played out, and then we give A6030 unless the non-offenders got more than 60%, in which case the table result stands. >Nevertheless, Anne's broader point is well-taken. If a particular type >of infraction is causing big problems, maybe it's time to look for a >quick way to adjust. (I haven't seen problems around here, but maybe >that's because the two-suited overcalls aren't popular.) In fact I merely suggested we should have a special rule. Since that was not accepted we never got around to discussing what that special rule should be. -- 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 Mar 8 03:02:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27G2bg03152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 03:02:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f27G2Tt03112 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 03:02:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA21020; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 16:58:34 +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 RAA29630; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:02:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010307170442.00834100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 17:04:42 +0100 To: "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7CE@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 14:38 7/03/01 +0100, you wrote: > > >> >Is the TD entitled to the algorithm? > >I am not sure this to be an important issue for the development of >bridge-laws and knowledge thereof. But who cares? > > >> AG : I'd answer no. For, the normal way to inform him is to >> write it on the >> CC. If you do, of course this has no more interest, and is >> even illegal >> (partner now knows) > >I don't understand this reply. If you write the algorithme on your CC then >still nobody should know the outcome when applying it, isn't it? So what is >illegal about it? AG : if you write the algorithm, anybody will be able to use it. That's what algorithms are for. >Another question: Assume that this pair uses a 'randomizer' which can be >used by the opponents as well: when the number of beerglasses on the table >is odd we open 1C otherwise 1D. Since 0 (zero) will never happen we don't >have to discuss that problem. AG : 0 is even. Proof : it doesn't yield any remainder when divided by 2. Can we demand from the opponents to draw their >own conclusion or can we ask partner to tell opponents the outcome? >I know that this example makes the use of this agreement meaningless, but >that is not the issue. AG : you see, that's an algorithm. The opponents will know. Partner will know. *Tihs* is illegal. Usable algorithms (forget about prime-number factorization at the table) will have to be hidden from everybody, lest the randomness fly away. 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 Mar 8 03:18:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27GILj07151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 03:18:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27GI0t07085 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 03:18:01 +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 LAA15688 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:17:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA09507 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:17:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:17:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103071617.LAA09507@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > To: "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Usable algorithms (forget about prime-number factorization at the table) > will have to be hidden from everybody, lest the randomness fly away. I don't see why the algorithm has to be hidden. For example: if I have more deuces than treys, I open 1D, else 1C. (This makes 1C slightly more frequent; no doubt an algorithm that gives equal frequency could be devised if one wants one.) I don't see why this is illegal, if properly disclosed. I think algorithms based on external circumstances (e.g. beer glasses) are illegal under the asterisk in L40E2. How about this one: I shuffle my cards before looking at them, then if the bottom card is red, open 1D, else 1C. That produces a preference to open in the longer suit but probably not a strong one. No doubt one could devise a similar algorithm that gives an even chance. What about using the black/red algorithm to decide which card to play from QJ doubleton or make similar random decisions later in the hand? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 04:02:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27H0ct17792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 04:00:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f27H0Gt17717 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 04:00:18 +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 f27H0Aa05028; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:00:10 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f27H09M24696; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:00:09 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 07 Mar 2001 17:00:08 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07752; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:00:08 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA10561; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:00:07 GMT Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:00:07 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200103071700.RAA10561@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, willner@cfa.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > What about using the black/red algorithm to decide which card to play > from QJ doubleton or make similar random decisions later in the hand? e.g. Q if I started with 7 or more odd-black and even-red card (where J, K are odd, and Q, A are even). This sort of thing always conjurers up the picture of declarer, finding an opponent playing a Q on the first round of a suit, trying to discover enough of that opponents small cards to determine if the Q could have be from QJ or whether it must have been singleton. 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 Mar 8 04:10:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27H9qq20376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 04:09:52 +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 (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27H9jt20372 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 04:09:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-64-170.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.64.170]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA22160; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:09:15 GMT Message-ID: <003a01c0a729$3e2ce040$aa407bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" References: <001301c0a5d9$69d7a3c0$b72cfc3e@vnmvhhid> <000f01c0a6ef$0cd8c020$34437bd5@dodona> <001101c0a70a$bdff2360$e08c69d5@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:06:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: 07 March 2001 13:30 Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! > A worthy response Grattan. I did say that I thought > that a standard way of dealing with the situation is > what players, not just TDs, want. TDs are also > players - this is a point often forgotten by other > players. But the working TD is probably a lot more > aware of the high incidence of such problems than > is the average player. > +=+ I do not believe frequency of occurrence is any kind of guide to the desirable method of dealing with an incident of a given type and I do think that TDs, even allowing they are also players, have an approach to such matters that is to a degree bent from the general approach of players by their reactions as TDs. The easy way out for directors is not a goal for the legislator. ~ 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 Mar 8 05:32:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27IWEa05724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 05:32:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f27IW6t05692 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 05:32:07 +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 14aij9-0005xE-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 18:32:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 16:09:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem 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 David Stevenson writes > > B32 -- W N E S > E/W KJT94 > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P > T98 3S P 4S X >AKJT43 Q2 AP >A83 ++ Q7652 >5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C >Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty > 98765 oriented: description later > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" > TMS A973 4Sx-1 > KJ42 > > North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as H + D. She >said everyone does so where she plays. South agreed he had probably got >it wrong. The description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". > > East-West said that: > >1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double of 3C >showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements of a double of >3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to the doubt over the meaning >of the double. >2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. >3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if he had known >that it was not one of North's suits. > > So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? The Director decided that the UI that North had did not make a difference, ie that the club lead was not an LA for this class of player. The Director decided that there was MI. The Director believed that West would probably bid 3S anyway, but possibly might not. The Director ruled the score for both N/S and E/W as 80% of NS+100, plus 20% of NS-800 There was no appeal, and E/W apparently needed 100% of NS-800 to win the k/o match. -- 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 Mar 8 06:29:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27JTdJ20803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 06:29:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27JTRt20735 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 06:29:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01121 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:35:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103071935.OAA01121@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200103071617.LAA09507@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200103071617.LAA09507@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:35:54 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 7 March 2001 at 11:17, Steve Willner wrote: >> To: "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >> Usable algorithms (forget about prime-number factorization at the table) >> will have to be hidden from everybody, lest the randomness fly away. > >I don't see why the algorithm has to be hidden. For example: if I have >more deuces than treys, I open 1D, else 1C. (This makes 1C slightly >more frequent; no doubt an algorithm that gives equal frequency could >be devised if one wants one.) I don't see why this is illegal, if >properly disclosed. > Hmm. How about (BotE calculation) if the number is equal, open 1C with zero or four of both deuces and treys, 1D otherwise. Gives a nice similarity with Blackwood :-) >I think algorithms based on external circumstances (e.g. beer glasses) >are illegal under the asterisk in L40E2. > I admit to my habit of alternating the gender of my non-specific third person, without working too hard to remember where I left off. I guess that's L40E2 non-compliant, as well. (Unless I'm writing bridge teaching materials; then I follow the 'Politically Correct Club' system: Opener and advancer are male, responder and overcaller are female. All hail consistency!). No, I don't want to start this thread again; private replies, as always, are welcome. Oh, and I have no idea about the legality of the original question. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 07:10:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27K9EF00492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 07:09:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f27K8qt00431 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 07:08:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010307191616.USKR15770362.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]>; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:16:16 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "John Probst" CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 19:16:49 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010307191616.USKR15770362.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 02:05:34 +0000 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: [BLML] random minors. > > > Where are we on opening 1C or 1D randomly (5 card majors) if we intend > to rebid in NT? ie we can open 1C or 1D with equal probability on 3325 > or 3352, or any other balanced shape. > Opening 1c on 3352 or 1d on 3325 would be conventional - not guaranteeing length (3-cards) in the suit opened. > Suppose we have a parity algorithm which partner doesn't know? This > "guarantees" randomness. We can seal the algorithm with a trusted 3rd > party. > > Suppose we psyche our own algorithm, depending on who the oppo are? > Psyches are allowed. However 'We psyche... depending on who the oppo are?' suggests a partnership agreement to me and if so then not a psyche. > Is the TD entitled to the algorithm? The opponents are entitled to partnership agreement and experience. The algorithm is not partnership agreement if partner doesn't know it and how I bid this time is not or in the future is not experience. If the opponents are not entitled to it then why does the TD need it. A problem may arise when you say I open each minor based on a random 50% probability. And the opponents dispute saying we think this is misinformation as you seem to open your short or long minor or clubs or whatever much more frequently and you would then need to justify your explanations. > > EBU? > > rest of the World? > > This is a real question from a YC player, who has impeccable ethics and > a penchant for bizarre systems. How about randomly open one of your long suits, 3-cards or longer, major or minor. If your randomizing algorithm was known to partner and based on something in your hand potentially partner (and opponents) would be able deduce what you have and now you would have an encrypted bidding system. > -- > 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/ > 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 Thu Mar 8 07:20:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27KK7b02548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 07:20:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f156.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.156]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27KJot02487 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 07:19:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:19:42 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 07 Mar 2001 20:19:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 12:19:41 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2001 20:19:42.0272 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1800400:01C0A743] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Michael Farebrother >On 7 March 2001 at 11:17, Steve Willner wrote: > >> To: "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > >> Usable algorithms (forget about prime-number factorization at the >table) > >> will have to be hidden from everybody, lest the randomness fly away. > > > >I don't see why the algorithm has to be hidden. The algorithm has to be hidden because that was part of John's question. > >For example: if I have > >more deuces than treys, I open 1D, else 1C. (This makes 1C slightly > >more frequent; no doubt an algorithm that gives equal frequency could > >be devised if one wants one.) I don't see why this is illegal, if > >properly disclosed. > > >Hmm. How about (BotE calculation) if the number is equal, open 1C >with zero or four of both deuces and treys, 1D otherwise. Gives a nice >similarity with Blackwood :-) For note, these are only pseudo-random. These would be legal in and of themselves. Turn it on its head. If we're allowed to make systems that open 1C vs. 1D based on holdings of A's, K's, Q's, and J's, we can certainly make systems based on holdings of 2's, 3's, 4's, and 5's. And if we can base systems on # of spades vs. # of hearts, where's the problem with # of reds vs. # of blacks? (Provided our aim in doing so is not to lose.) > >I think algorithms based on external circumstances (e.g. beer glasses) > >are illegal under the asterisk in L40E2. I wonder where the line between basing your bidding on # of beer glasses vs. skill of opponents actually lies. I'd also argue that the # of beer glasses is not an aid to calculation, but rather an input. >Oh, and I have no idea about the legality of the original question. Illegal in the ACBL. You and your partner must play the same system/card. The problem can't exist because partner will and must know the algorithm in order that he play it too. Unless this is somehow considered a matter of style or judgement.... Otherwise, I don't see how or why TD or opponents are entitled to the algorithm. It is not a partnership understanding. -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 Mar 8 08:04:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27L3kf12599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:03:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f27L3dt12595 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:03:40 +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 IAA22996; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:07:10 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 07:56:27 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] .quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo .. (was St. P) To: "cyaxares::.gov.au":"lineone.net:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:00:28 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/03/2001 08:01:13 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I suggest that technical words in the 2008 Laws should not be written in English. This would force lazy TDs and ACs to read the Definitions before making a ruling. For example, below is Law 12C3, with the technical terms replaced by Batwords: *Unless Zgruppp! Ouch-eth! specify otherwise, an awkkkkkk! clunk-eth! may vary an aiiee! arrgh! slosh! in order to achieve eee-yow!* Will the WBF accept this modest proposal? Tune in next week, same Battime ... same Batchannel. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 08:49:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27LnL612772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:49:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f27LnEt12768 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:49:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27ExtI02143 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:59:55 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:58:03 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010305084150.00b6cb80@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010307083422.00ab9ee0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010307083422.00ab9ee0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01030714595502.02076@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 07 Mar 2001, Eric Landau wrote: > But when declarer, who has revoked (or miscounted trumps) in 3S, is > given the result for 4S -- unless we have reason to believe that the > play would have gone differently in 4S, with which Herman has no > problem -- we simply rule that it is not at all likely that declarer > would have played differently at 4S and make a straigtforward L12C2 > ruling; the possibility of +450 at 4S is not a consideration. Suppose that the play is not careless or irrational; do you use the same principle? For example, suppose that 11 tricks depends on guessing the SQ. Declarer, playing in 3S rather than 4S due to MI, guesses wrong and makes +170. Do you now adjust to +420 (or, under L12C, an equal weighting of +420 and +450)? -- 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 Mar 8 09:13:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27MDd312840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:13:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f27MDYt12836 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:13:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p118-tnt7.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.206.118]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id LAA17011 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:13:31 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p118-tnt7.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.206.118] claimed to be tripack.ihug.co.nz Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010308110003.009e9460@pop3.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop3.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 11:11:30 +1300 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: patrick carter Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <4F864ABudZp6EwuC@asimere.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Where are we on opening 1C or 1D randomly (5 card majors) if we >intend to rebid in NT? ie we can open 1C or 1D with equal probability >on 3325 or 3352, or any other balanced shape. >Suppose we have a parity algorithm which partner doesn't know? This >"guarantees" randomness. We can seal the algorithm with a trusted >3rd party. Suppose we psyche our own algorithm, depending on who >the oppo are? >Is the TD entitled to the algorithm? >EBU? >rest of the World? >This is a real question from a YC player, who has impeccable ethics >and a penchant for bizarre systems. The opponents are entitled to a full understanding of your methods, even when your partner does not know them. This will usually be because partner has forgotten that part of the system, but occasionally it will be because partner has not read that part of the system. In this case partner would not know because you have not allowed him/her to read that part of the system, however the opponents are still entitled to the information even though partner is in the dark. Patrick Carter Auckland New Zealand -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 09:18:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27MI1t12852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:18:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27MHtt12848 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:17:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.18.127] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14amFg-0002S4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:17:49 +0000 Message-ID: <008701c0a754$67db7160$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@pbncomputer> <3AA4D286.202C47C9@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:16:46 -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 Herman wrote: > > (but, following the de Wael view for the moment, East-West > > do not know - because they are not allowed to know - that South thinks > > that North has the round suits). What would have happened? > > What is the De wael point in this ? Isn't this a general > principle ? No. As far as I know, you were the first person to state as a "principle" that the opponents are not allowed to know that your side is in the middle of a misunderstanding. It is not, as it happens, a principle in which I believe, and the remark below is somewhat confusing to me: > A player is allowed to use the information that opponents > are having a misunderstanding, but he is not entitled to > that information. How can a player be entitled to use information that he is not entitled to have? I suspect that we may be at cross-purposes here, though. Suppose I know (from previous experience) that when North bids 3C, he always has the red suits, but then South tells me that he has the round suits. Or, suppose I guess (because I have a lot of clubs) that South's explanation is wrong. Now, I assume from what you say (and I believe it to be correct) that I am entitled to let my opponents get on with their disaster; I do not have to take any particular steps to protect myself from damage. This may be what you mean by the assertion above. However, I think that I am at all times allowed to know what my opponents' methods actually are. Thus, if my RHO makes a bid that shows hearts and diamonds, I am allowed to know that this is what it shows. If my LHO then explains it as hearts and clubs, I am allowed to know that my opponents are in the middle of a misunderstanding, even if the only reason I have for this knowledge is South's explanation, rather than my own hand, or past experience, or knowledge of the players concerned. > Behind screens, either opponent that receives, from North, > the correct information (reds), would not know that South > thinks it is rounds. Nor is he entitled to know this. This, of course, is the crux of the problem. As a practical matter (if the screen runs from north-west to south-east, as is usual): West will know that South thinks North has the round suits (but he will not know what North actually has); East will know that North has the red suits (but he will not know what South thinks that North has). Now, I do not think that this is a practical basis on which either to play or to administer the game. It is simply not fair to expect East and West to make sensible and informed decisions while they are operating not only in the dark, but in different darkrooms. I think that by default, both East and West should know what North has shown; moreover, both East and West should know what explanations have been handed out by South. If NS suffer more damage than they would otherwise have suffered in consequence - well, perhaps next time they will arrive at the table playing a system that they both know, and can both explain to their opponents. In short, I think that rather than the current "imaginary screen" test, one should use an "imaginary four-way screen" test, in which both East and West hear North explain his bid as the red suits, while South explains it as the round suits. After all, this is (in effect) what happens when screens are not in use (assuming that NS abide by their ethical responsibilities). > > Would East have doubled 3C? Of course he would, since that is what he > > did. > > ehm ... why is it important what he did ? he got wrong > information, remember ? True, but since he was willing to double a red-suited 3C with DKxx, there is some evidence for the notion that he would have been prepared to double a round-suited 3C with CAxx. However, since in the former case both of his minor-suit tops were likely tricks, while in the latter case the DK may have been of no use at all, there is certainly some chance that he would not have doubled 3C. > I am not saying that he would not have doubled, but if there > is some chance that he would not have done, 3C undoubled may > well become a "likely" or "probable" outcome, which might be > placed among the rest to determine what the AS is going to > be. Not really. If East had not doubled 3C, South would without doubt have raised it, which is why 5C doubled was being suggested as a possible outcome (and correctly so). > > Would South have passed? Yes, for that is what he did - remember, > > we are assuming that it is only East-West (and North) who know that > > North has the red suits. > > This is the only certainty that we have in all the case. > We would even be able to assume that he would have passed > 3Cl undoubled. No, we would not. Any bridge player with South's hand: xxxxx None Axxx KJxx would without question raise clubs if he thought his partner had five of them - whether to 4C or 5C is perhaps a matter for judgement, but pass is inconceivable. Of course, when 3C was doubled, South had good reason to pass - after all, it might become the final contract. > > Would North have removed 3C > > doubled? We don't know, for we don't know what South's pass meant. If it > > meant "pick a red suit", then North might bid 3D, passed by East, raised > > by South, and... Or, North might bid 3H (his better red suit), doubled > > by East, corrected by South, and... If, on the other hand, South's pass > > meant "I want to play 3C doubled even though I know you have the reds", > > then 3C doubled would be the final contract, down several. > > There we are, Alain's adjustment again. Well... if West had been told that South had a string of clubs, he might not have passed 3C doubled in any case (given that he bid 3S at the table). Remember that West is allowed to know that East has doubled a red-suited 3C; this double says nothing about clubs, and West may very well have reappraised the situation over a pass by South that showed a large number of clubs. Of course, there is no doubt that he would have passed 3C doubled had he known that his opponents were in the middle of a misunderstanding, and that - inter alia - is why he ought in my view to be permitted this knowledge. > North knows partner thinks he has clubs and hearts, and he > should not use that UI. > If we assume that pass means "pick a red one" then passing > is not a LA. > Bidding diamonds and hearts are LAs > Does the UI suggest diamonds or hearts ? Neither, but the UI suggests that South knows North has hearts, while he does not know that North has diamonds. Thus, the UI strongly suggests that North show his diamonds, in order to elicit preference between the red suits from his partner. Of course, an educated North in this position will redouble, which suggests a marginal preference for hearts - but although it is perhaps far-fetched to consider 3C redoubled a possible outcome, it is certainly not as implausible as it may seem at first sight. It is one that cannot conceivably be achieved, however, if the HdW "principle" alluded to above is accepted. 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 Mar 8 09:43:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27Mh7t13014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:43:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27Mgxt13010 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:43:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA05851 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:42:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA10140 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:42:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:42:55 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103072242.RAA10140@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > How can a player be entitled to use information that he is not entitled > to have? An analogy is to seeing a card from an opponent's hand. You have no right or expectation of seeing an opponent's cards, but if an opponent shows you any, you are allowed to use the information. Herman is saying that you have a complete right to know the opponents' agreements but no right to know whether they happen to remember the agreements themselves. If you find out (and you usually will as to at least one player), you can use the information, but score adjustments are based on the assumption that an outside agency secretly whispers the opponents' agreements to the NOS. I am not certain Herman's view is correct, but I don't see anything illogical or impractical about it. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 10:25:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27NOw913235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:24:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f255.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.28]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27NOmt13231 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:24:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:24:43 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 07 Mar 2001 23:24:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 15:24:43 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2001 23:24:43.0971 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAA0D930:01C0A75D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" > > A player is allowed to use the information that opponents > > are having a misunderstanding, but he is not entitled to > > that information. > >How can a player be entitled to use information that he is not entitled >to have? "Misunderstanding" is not used in the Laws, is it? Entitled means more than to be allowed, but to be given the means necessary of acquiring what you are allowed. e.g. I'm allowed to live a lavish and luxurious life, but I'm not entitled to it. At least, this seems to be the distinction Herman wants to make. Specifically, if you can figure out that your opponents are misunderstanding their auction, more power to you. You cannot directly ask them if they have a misunderstanding nor what it is. >In short, I think that rather than the current "imaginary screen" test, >one should use an "imaginary four-way screen" test, in which both East >and West hear North explain his bid as the red suits, while South >explains it as the round suits. After all, this is (in effect) what >happens when screens are not in use (assuming that NS abide by their >ethical responsibilities). Swap the misbid/misinformation in this example and this solution is not viable. That is, south explained correctly, but north misbid. You are entitled to know that your opponents have misinformed you. Disclosure of this usually happens at the end of the auction if not the end of the hand. Retroactively trying to figure out what would have happened had corrected disclosure come immediately doesn't appear to be current practice. You are not entitled to know that your opponents have misbid. It's just too bad. >Well... if West had been told that South had a string of clubs, he might >not have passed 3C doubled in any case (given that he bid 3S at the >table). Remember that West is allowed to know that East has doubled a >red-suited 3C; this double says nothing about clubs, and West may very >well have reappraised the situation over a pass by South that showed a >large number of clubs. Of course, there is no doubt that he would have >passed 3C doubled had he known that his opponents were in the middle of >a misunderstanding, and that - inter alia - is why he ought in my view >to be permitted this knowledge. I'm not convinced that either your or Herman's view is supported by the current Law. -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 Mar 8 10:43:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27NhLP13341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:43:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from psa836.la.asu.edu (root@psa836.la.asu.edu [129.219.44.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27NhEt13337 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:43:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27GruK02261 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 16:53:56 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 16:49:10 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3AA4D286.202C47C9@village.uunet.be> <008701c0a754$67db7160$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <008701c0a754$67db7160$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01030716535603.02076@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 07 Mar 2001, David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > > A player is allowed to use the information that opponents > > are having a misunderstanding, but he is not entitled to > > that information. > > How can a player be entitled to use information that he is not entitled > to have? If he happens to get the information, he may use it. Suppose that LHO holds his cards carelessly and you see his SQ. You are entitled to use that information in the play, but you have no right to that information unless it happens to come up. > However, I think that I am at all times allowed to know what my > opponents' methods actually are. Thus, if my RHO makes a bid that shows > hearts and diamonds, I am allowed to know that this is what it shows. If > my LHO then explains it as hearts and clubs, I am allowed to know that > my opponents are in the middle of a misunderstanding, even if the only > reason I have for this knowledge is South's explanation, rather than my > own hand, or past experience, or knowledge of the players concerned. I agree. However, if the correct explanation is hearts and clubs (as indicated on the convention card, for example), you are not allowed to know that RHO actually holds hearts and diamonds. Assuming that the agreement is correct, RHO need not correct this even when he becomes declarer or dummy. -- 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 Mar 8 10:46:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f27NkpF13371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:46:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f27Nkft13367 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:46:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.118.58] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14andc-00052X-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Mar 2001 23:46:37 +0000 Message-ID: <009101c0a760$cf9dd3e0$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010305084150.00b6cb80@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010307083422.00ab9ee0@127.0.0.1> <01030714595502.02076@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 23:46:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David G wrote: > > But when declarer, who has revoked (or miscounted trumps) in 3S, is > > given the result for 4S -- unless we have reason to believe that the > > play would have gone differently in 4S, with which Herman has no > > problem -- we simply rule that it is not at all likely that declarer > > would have played differently at 4S and make a straigtforward L12C2 > > ruling; the possibility of +450 at 4S is not a consideration. > > Suppose that the play is not careless or irrational; do you use the > same principle? For example, suppose that 11 tricks depends on guessing > the SQ. Declarer, playing in 3S rather than 4S due to MI, guesses wrong > and makes +170. Do you now adjust to +420 (or, under L12C, an equal > weighting of +420 and +450)? I think it may be safely argued that 450 is not a "likely" result in 4S, since declarer would not have guessed the SQ in that contract when he did not guess it in 3S. Thus, 420 appears obvious (unless declarer argues: "I took the anti-percentage line in 3S because I didn't know for sure that the contract would be adjusted to 4S"). It may be worth while to put this discussion in perspective. Until recently, there have been two schools of thought, with little chance of reconciliation between them. The one school holds that if your opponents are found to have committed an infraction, without which you would not have been declaring contract X or defending contract Y but instead collecting whatever you would have collected in contract Z, then your most favourable of likely results in contract Z is what your side should be awarded. The other holds that if, as a result of an infraction by the opponents, the final contract is X, and if your side then does something "irrational, wild or gambling" during the play of contract X, your side should score whatever it scored in contract X (while the opponents are awarded the least favourable of at all probable outcomes in contract Z). [I omit, for simplicity, those situations in which your "irrational, wild or gambling" action may have occurred in the auction, but the arguments are essentially the same in both cases.] Now, the adherents of the first school will point out, with impeccable logic, that the opponents ought not to go around committing infractions; if they do, and thereby cause a position to have arisen that never would have arisen had they failed to offend, your score should be determined as if they had not offended. The adherents of the second school will point out, with equally impeccable logic, that if as a result of an enemy infraction, you are actually in a position to gain compared with what would have happened absent the infraction, and if you fail to do this through your own irrationality, wildness, or tendency to gamble, then you should suffer the consequences (though the opponents should not, as far as possible, derive any kind of profit from their sin). Moreover, if a putative infraction has robbed you of an opportunity to gain, you have still some responsibility to play "normal" bridge, and must suffer the consequences of any truly abnormal bridge played by you that was not in any way occasioned by the infraction. The "rightness" of both arguments cannot be gainsaid, which is why there has been an awful lot of banging on the table and shouting. It has taken some while, but a potentially satisfactory compromise appears to be emerging, based on the notion of "subsequent and consequent damage" first articulated by Edgar Kaplan about 30 years ago, but - until now - never adequately formulated. The idea is that you are given redress from the damage done to you by your opponents, but you are made to suffer for damage done to you by yourselves. What the adherents of the first school will need to accept in order for this elegant solution to work is this: you are obliged to continue to play rational, non-wild, and non-gambling bridge in whatever situation you find yourself, in order to avoid doing damage to your side through your own actions. Of course, there will remain people who will continue to argue: "It doesn't matter if I revoked defending three diamonds - if the opponents hadn't cheated, I would never have been defending three diamonds anyway." There will also be people who continue to debate whether or not a revoke is irrational - of course it is; how can you have a reason for revoking? But I very much hope that the powers that be will accept the formulation of the "subsequent and consequent damage" principle as expounded by HdW, Ton Kooijman and others in the case under discussion, for this seems to me far and away the most practical and equitable basis on which to proceed. 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 Mar 8 11:16:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f280GRe13552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:16:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f280G8t13548 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:16:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.110.27] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14ao67-0007cv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 00:16:03 +0000 Message-ID: <00a101c0a764$eca3cd60$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200103072242.RAA10140@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:15:09 -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 Steve wrote: > Herman is saying that you have a complete right to know the opponents' > agreements but no right to know whether they happen to remember the > agreements themselves. If you find out (and you usually will as to at > least one player), you can use the information, but score adjustments > are based on the assumption that an outside agency secretly whispers > the opponents' agreements to the NOS. > > I am not certain Herman's view is correct, but I don't see anything > illogical or impractical about it. These are deep waters. The other day, someone at the club opened 2H, not alerted (under EBU regulations, weak two bids are alertable, strong two bids are not). I had some hand on which I would perhaps have acted over a weak 2H, but because of the non-alert I assumed a strong 2H, and passed. LHO bid 4H. Partner now asked what 2H was, and passed on being told that it was strong (correctly, for such was apparently the agreement). We defended 4H undoubled down four, poor compensation for a cold game our way. Now, under the actual conditions, this result was "normal" in that we had no redress under the Laws. In effect, my RHO had psyched, and there is no law against that. But... had we been playing with screens, I would have been told by my RHO that 2H was weak, and would (perhaps) not have passed; or, partner would have been told by her LHO that 2H was weak, and would (certainly) not have passed. This is what is wrong with the "imaginary screen" test. The situation was exacerbated when LHO said to RHO: "That's the second time you've forgotten tonight!" Does this create disclosable partnership experience, Grattan? I believe it to be both illogical and impractical that we have to implement rules which say: it is possible to fix your opponents by forgetting your system in certain circumstances, but not in others. I know that these are the rules at the moment; I know why they are the rules; as an official I will of course continue to implement those rules. But on a personal level, I do not agree with them. Kaplan said to me in Albuquerque that he believed forgetting your system ought to be punishable under Law 74B1, since it constituted paying insufficient attention to the game. I know what he 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 Thu Mar 8 11:24:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f280OKa13597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:24:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f280ODt13593 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:24:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP241.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.3]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11636 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 16:24:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200103071824090700.01F2B87C@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010308110003.009e9460@pop3.ihug.co.nz> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010308110003.009e9460@pop3.ihug.co.nz> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 18:24:09 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >The opponents are entitled to a full understanding of your methods, even >when your partner does not know them. Not the way I understand it. They're entitled to a full understanding of your (our) *agreements*, plus partnership experience. If my experience of 1C/D openers is "I've tried for years to figure out how he does it and still haven't a clue, and he won't tell me", then that's all they're entitled to. I think we discussed this a couple of years ago when Michael Rosenberg's book came out; he said that not even Zia knows his (MR's) criteria for deciding whether to open 1C or 1D when (43)33. MHO is that keeping partner and the oppos in the dark is legal. 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 Mar 8 12:14:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f281Dxq14376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:13:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f281Djt14319 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:13:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.144.248] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14aozr-0003Mq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 01:13:40 +0000 Message-ID: <00bc01c0a76c$f8f3aec0$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3AA4D286.202C47C9@village.uunet.be> <008701c0a754$67db7160$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> <01030716535603.02076@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 01:12:43 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David G wrote: > > How can a player be entitled to use information that he is not entitled > > to have? > Suppose that LHO holds his cards carelessly and you see his SQ. You > are entitled to use that information in the play, but you have no right > to that information unless it happens to come up. Todd also made this distinction, which is a valid one and for which I am grateful. > I agree. However, if the correct explanation is hearts and clubs (as > indicated on the convention card, for example), you are not allowed to > know that RHO actually holds hearts and diamonds. Assuming that the > agreement is correct, RHO need not correct this even when he becomes > declarer or dummy. Quite so. Playing with real screens solves a large number of practical problems with the Laws, but it creates the specific problem that I was attempting to address: although I am not allowed to know that RHO has hearts and diamonds, I will (if I am his screen-mate) know it. Now, of course, I really do have information to which I am not entitled. What am I to do with this information? It seems to me necessary to address in some way the problem created by the fact that, playing with real screens, there will be situations in which East and West, through no fault of their own but through an error (which may or may not be an irregularity) by North and South, are operating with completely different sets of data. As a practical matter, one could attempt to resolve these situations by recourse to the existing Laws, but there are a number of objections to this. Simpler, or so it seems to me, is to make the assumption that East and West have the same data available to them both. After all, if North-South knew their methods, that is what would happen. Received wisdom (and, indeed, the current Laws) holds that it is not in itself an infraction to forget your side's methods. There are circumstances in which you can do this "without penalty", and indeed with considerable benefit to your side. I don't have any quarrel with this as such; I say merely that if a set of conditions (screens) makes it more likely that a side will profit from its own error in certain circumstances, that set of conditions should be examined in order to reduce the likelihood, or at any rate to restore it to what it was before the conditions were imposed. A disclaimer: I know what the rules are, and I know that they are not as I would like them to be in this area. It is quite likely that I have more experience of playing with real screens than most BLML subscribers except Peter Gill, and it may be that this problem is exercising my mind to a greater extent than it ought to be because of that. I have myself encountered a situation in which after a typical Burn-Callaghan joke auction, I explained my side's methods correctly to my screen-mate. He let through 3NT doubled in consequence; then he said: "If I'd been sitting on the other side of the screen, and heard the wrong explanation, the contract would have been four down." This was quite true, and led me to the belief that in fairness, the fate of the contract ought not to have been quite as arbitrary as it turned out to be. If we had not goofed, or if a bit of wood had been placed one way rather than the other, they would have been the British team that year instead of us. "Either I'm too sensitive, or else I'm getting soft" (Bob Dylan). 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 Mar 8 12:26:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f281QMl18520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:26:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f281QBt18455 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:26:15 +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 14apBw-000Pjq-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 01:26:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 01:23:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <200103071617.LAA09507@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200103071617.LAA09507@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 <200103071617.LAA09507@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> To: "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >> Usable algorithms (forget about prime-number factorization at the table) >> will have to be hidden from everybody, lest the randomness fly away. > >I don't see why the algorithm has to be hidden. For example: if I have >more deuces than treys, I open 1D, else 1C. (This makes 1C slightly >more frequent; no doubt an algorithm that gives equal frequency could >be devised if one wants one.) I don't see why this is illegal, if >properly disclosed. ok Let's pursue this further. If I take an XOR parity of the second/third - who cares - least significant bit of all the spot cards 2 through 9 (subtract 2) (which are immaterial for the purposes of the opening bid), and chuck in the vulnerability and board number for good measure I will come up with a decision to open 1C or 1D. I will have no problem demonstrating from the play records that I open 1C and 1D the same number of times (given time). ... and a player says to me (the TD), "I think Alf (the player's name) is opening his shorter suit more often than the longer." Alf's *only* defence (if indeed this appears to be the case) will be to tell me the algorithm and show that he hasn't psyched it. This is fine, I can say to Alf "I am satisfied that you are using random minor openings and that your partner *could not* be in a position to field it. ... which leads to a problem when he does decide to psyche it ... > >I think algorithms based on external circumstances (e.g. beer glasses) >are illegal under the asterisk in L40E2. > >How about this one: I shuffle my cards before looking at them, then if >the bottom card is red, open 1D, else 1C. That produces a preference >to open in the longer suit but probably not a strong one. No doubt >one could devise a similar algorithm that gives an even chance. > >What about using the black/red algorithm to decide which card to play >from QJ doubleton or make similar random decisions later in the hand? I always have had a parity check for this one btw. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 8 12:29:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f281TFi19499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:29:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f281TAt19468 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:29:10 +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 MAA02410 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:32:48 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 12:02:02 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:06:02 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/03/2001 12:06:49 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Kaplan said to me in Albuquerque that he >believed forgetting your system ought to be >punishable under Law 74B1, since it constituted >paying insufficient attention to the game. I >know what he meant. > >David Burn >London, England Canberra's regional bridge federation, BFACT, has a regulation which states that it is inherent in the Laws [presumably under L74B1], that a partnership knows its bidding system. The penalty [presumably under L40D] against partnerships repeatedly forgetting their bidding system, is prohibition of the partnership using the system (or the specific conventions) that they habitually forget. I note that the WBF Code of Practice hints at a similar approach. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 13:44:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f282hcR03195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:43:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f282hSt03162 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:43:28 +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 NAA11710 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:47:01 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:36:17 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Net newts To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:40:17 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/03/2001 01:41:04 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, in the thread *Ghestem again!*: [big snip] >Received wisdom (and, indeed, the current Laws) holds that it is not in >itself an infraction to forget your side's methods. There are >circumstances in which you can do this "without penalty", and indeed >with considerable benefit to your side. I don't have any quarrel with >this as such; I say merely that if a set of conditions (screens) makes >it more likely that a side will profit from its own error in certain >circumstances, that set of conditions should be examined in order to >reduce the likelihood, or at any rate to restore it to what it was >before the conditions were imposed. [big snip] To solve an ethical problem, screens were a 1970s solution. But in the 21st century, there is another solution which not only solves the chronic ethical problem, but also fixes the assymetric data problem troubling David Burn. Instead of playing important matches behind screens, use the Net instead. Software exists whereby you can interrogate each opponent about their methods, without pard being aware of your questions (or even an opponent being aware of the questions you ask the other opponent). An added bonus is that the problem of required random *screen* hesitations can be mechanically implemented by the software. This idea is a quarter-century old, being first mentioned by Australian expert Neville Moses in his humorous article, "The New Champion of the Universe". Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 19:07:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2886N012032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:06:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2886Et12028 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:06:15 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA12046; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:06:08 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 08 09:09:46 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 <01K0Y5SY2C760044NE@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:04:58 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 08:59:55 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:04:55 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D0@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 don't understand this reply. If you write the algorithme > on your CC then > >still nobody should know the outcome when applying it, isn't > it? So what is > >illegal about it? > > AG : if you write the algorithm, anybody will be able to use > it. That's > what algorithms are for. > As usual we don't know what we are talking about, by lack of definitions. When I use the word algorithm I think of some description how to get to a desired result. Which not necessarily means that having available that algoritm we also know the outcome when applying it. Take for example the algorithm used to get deals to be played. We still succeed once in a while to present the players with hands they didn't play yet. So when I write on my CC the algorithm that with tails I open clubs and with head it will be diamonds I might convince the TD this to be a fair algorithm though he is entitled to check the coin I use for it, in my opinion. But if I synchronize my watch with my partner's and the algorithm is that from second 0 to 30 it will be diamonds and otherwise clubs the TD should forbid me to use it. He probably should forbid it anyway because any clever partner could find out what I am doing. That is what my second question was about. May we demand from opponents to be as clever as partner is, telling them to find out themselves. So, yes everybody is able to use it, but the outcome is not necesarrily the same. That is what I tried to explain to you. 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 Mar 8 19:21:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f288LQ412126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:21:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f288Kwt12122 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:21:00 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA10812; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:51:36 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 08 08:52:57 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01K0Y58037ZA0045ST@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 08:48:05 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 08:43:03 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 08:48:02 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7CF@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: alain gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] > Verzonden: woensdag 7 maart 2001 17:05 > Aan: Kooijman, A.; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: RE: [BLML] random minors. > > > At 14:38 7/03/01 +0100, you wrote: > > > > > >> >Is the TD entitled to the algorithm? > > > >I am not sure this to be an important issue for the development of > >bridge-laws and knowledge thereof. But who cares? > > > > > >> AG : I'd answer no. For, the normal way to inform him is to > >> write it on the > >> CC. If you do, of course this has no more interest, and is > >> even illegal > >> (partner now knows) > > > >I don't understand this reply. If you write the algorithme > on your CC then > >still nobody should know the outcome when applying it, isn't > it? So what is > >illegal about it? > > AG : if you write the algorithm, anybody will be able to use > it. That's > what algorithms are for. > > > >Another question: Assume that this pair uses a 'randomizer' > which can be > >used by the opponents as well: when the number of > beerglasses on the table > >is odd we open 1C otherwise 1D. Since 0 (zero) will never > happen we don't > >have to discuss that problem. > > AG : 0 is even. Proof : it doesn't yield any remainder when > divided by 2. > > Can we demand from the opponents to draw their > >own conclusion or can we ask partner to tell opponents the outcome? > >I know that this example makes the use of this agreement > meaningless, but > >that is not the issue. > > AG : you see, that's an algorithm. The opponents will know. > Partner will > know. *Tihs* is illegal. > Usable algorithms (forget about prime-number factorization at > the table) > will have to be hidden from everybody, lest the randomness fly away. > > 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 Mar 8 19:23:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f288Ml812143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:22:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f288MYt12139 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:22:35 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA22277; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:22:29 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 08 09:26:30 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 <01K0Y6EDZ8I40045UU@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:21:29 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:16:26 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:21:25 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. To: "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D1@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 don't see why the algorithm has to be hidden. For example: > if I have > more deuces than treys, I open 1D, else 1C. (This makes 1C slightly > more frequent; no doubt an algorithm that gives equal frequency could > be devised if one wants one.) I don't see why this is illegal, if > properly disclosed. We seem to agree then. > > I think algorithms based on external circumstances (e.g. beer glasses) > are illegal under the asterisk in L40E2. > > How about this one: I shuffle my cards before looking at them, then if > the bottom card is red, open 1D, else 1C. That produces a preference > to open in the longer suit but probably not a strong one. No doubt > one could devise a similar algorithm that gives an even chance. > But not here. What in the footnote of 40E2 makes a distinction between external and internal (?) circumstances, external ones being forbidden, and futhermore giving you the impression that beerglasses are external and my bottom card is internal? Talking about aids to memory, calculation or technique I don't think that we ment to say that using a random-outcome-procedure to make a decision is illegal. But that is questionable, I agree. 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 Mar 8 20:15:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f289EQQ15764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 20:14:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f289EEt15710 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 20:14:14 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f289E5F10960 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:14:05 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:14 +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: <99ilt5CVp+n6EwtR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > Oh, come on. In L25 we assume inadvertently means that the player did > not mean to do it, and in L17D I assume but you don't that it means the > player did not mean to do it. The distinction seems a little unclear to > me. On RGB DWS wrote: > The accepted meaning of inadvertent is "I didn't mean to do that at > the moment I did that". That has been laid down by the WBFLC, apart > from other considerations. I happen to believe it is fairly unlikely that anyone will remove a hand from any board other than the one they intend to pick from *at that time*. If you remove the cards from board 5 it is usually because you think, at the time, that those are the correct cards to remove. Typical example - boards 4-6 arrive in the order 564 and are placed centre table. East removes his hand. North, seeing the boards are out of order switches to 456 (okay this is an infraction by North) and NWS remove their hands. Now there is no way I can see that East's removal of the cards for board 5 is anything other than "what he intended to do at the time" - it just doesn't fit the "accepted meaning" of inadvertent given above. I'm sure all TDs would use L17 anyway but I still think it would be better to remove the word inadvertent -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 20:57:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f289v7I26742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 20:57:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f289utt26679 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 20:56:56 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA13093; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:56:52 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 08 11:00:50 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 <01K0Y9P8M16M0044EI@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:56:31 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:51:28 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:56:29 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem again! To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D4@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 > > Steve wrote: > > > These are deep waters. The other day, someone at the club > > I believe it to be both illogical and impractical that we have to > implement rules which say: it is possible to fix your opponents by > forgetting your system in certain circumstances, but not in others. I > know that these are the rules at the moment; I know why they are the > rules; as an official I will of course continue to implement those > rules. But on a personal level, I do not agree with them. > Kaplan said to me in Albuquerque that he believed forgetting your system ought to be > punishable under Law 74B1, since it constituted paying insufficient > attention to the game. I know what he meant. Do you? He could have said that a pair forgetting its systems is punishable, if we agree that to be a violation of 74B1. Why did he say: 'ought to be', we already have that possibility. He did not say, and I am not sure he meant to say that, that the opponents should be entitled to redress. Law 75B explicitly tells us not to be allowed to. That is why I did not and still don't agree with the Dutch approach of 60/40 in case of a 'Ghestem' error. If we want we may give 40 to the erring side, but the others keep their score. I wouldn't give 40 myself, but subtract a fixed penalty from the actual result, in that case. I consider this subject to be one of the most important issues in the discussions we have to go through writing the next laws. I had a proposal for the WBF LC some time ago, when we developed the Code of Practice, in which I wanted to create the possibility that a mistaken bid of a convention might imply not to have a clear agreement. We even could use 74B1 for that: 'when constructing the system you did not pay enough attention to the consequences of the choices you made, or didn't understand your so called agreement. In that case the mistaken bid, according to the CC, can be transfered to an incomplete explanation, which we can deal with. The complete explanation being: 'We play all kind of transfers, but the possibilities are so complex and numerous that we are not sure to have discussed them all'; 'we say we play 'Ghestem' but didn't pass the exam'. That approach in my opinion is legal within the laws as they are now. But the LC wasn't ready for it, or didn't want it that way, that was not clear. There is another way to solve it: by defining 'partnership agreement' as something the players are expected to be able to handle, without punishing every mistake made. But playing Ghestem and overcalling 3C after an opening of 1H with xxx x Kx AQJxxxx is unacceptable. ton > > David Burn > London, England > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 21:20:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28AK6b28106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 21:20:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin1.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28AK0t28101 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 21:20:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.50]) by mailin1.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G9VJL600.YU5 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 20:24:42 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-215-84.tmns.net.au ([203.54.215.84]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Big-MailRouter V2.9c 17/1264350); 08 Mar 2001 20:20:12 Message-ID: <007d01c0a7b9$52294a80$54d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 21:19:54 +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: >A disclaimer: I know what the rules are, and I know that they >are not as I would like them to be in this area. It is quite likely >that I have more experience of playing with real screens than >most BLML subscribers except Peter Gill, and it may be that >this problem is exercising my mind to a greater extent than it >ought to be because of that. I have myself encountered a >situation in which after a typical Burn-Callaghan joke auction, >I explained my side's methods correctly to my screen-mate. >He let through 3NT doubled in consequence; then he said: >"If I'd been sitting on the other side of the screen, and heard >the wrong explanation, the contract would have been four down." >This was quite true, and led me to the belief that in fairness, >the fate of the contract ought not to have been quite as arbitrary >as it turned out to be. If we had not goofed, or if a bit of wood >had been placed one way rather than the other, they would >have been the British team that year instead of us. "Either I'm >too sensitive, or else I'm getting soft" (Bob Dylan). Quite a few expert players hold the view that with screens, one should minimise one's explanation so that the chances of "the two explanations matching" is higher. Technically illegal - yes - but able to be stamped out in practice - no. I sometimes wonder if screens are such a good idea. Without screens one could easily use pads and paper to reproduce "Net explanations", e.g a player might write on the pads to both his left and right : "2H?" and receive two written explanations of 2H, which his partner and he could see but the opponents could not see. Or just one explanation rather than two. There are plenty of alternatives without using the Net. Another possibility is that with screens, both of the written explanations could be available to both opponents. I don't know if any of these ideas are any good. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 8 21:32:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28AW8b28436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 21:32:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f155.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.155]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28AVvt28427 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 21:31:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 02:31:49 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:31:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:31:49 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2001 10:31:49.0609 (UTC) FILETIME=[FBC48590:01C0A7BA] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > >... and a player says to me (the TD), "I think Alf (the player's name) >is opening his shorter suit more often than the longer." Alf's *only* >defence (if indeed this appears to be the case) will be to tell me the >algorithm and show that he hasn't psyched it. This is fine, I can say >to Alf "I am satisfied that you are using random minor openings and that >your partner *could not* be in a position to field it. > >... which leads to a problem when he does decide to psyche it ... > > Can I ask a question to which the answer may be blindingly obvious to everyone else, in which case, I apologise? Why does this "Alf" chappie play this method? Is there any bridge merit in it whatsoever, or does he just want to do it as a fairly low-risk psyche designed to mess up the opponents should they either have the minor he bids and doesn't have or end up defending? Your description of him in an earlier post as 'ethical' seems to me to be given the lie by his desire to play this absurd and dishonest method. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mar 8 22:32:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28BVlv09294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:31:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28BVVt09236 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:31:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010308113126.PRU17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]>; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:31:26 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Norman Scorbie" CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:32:00 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010308113126.PRU17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Norman Scorbie" > Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:31:49 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > > John Probst wrote: > > > >... and a player says to me (the TD), "I think Alf (the player's name) > >is opening his shorter suit more often than the longer." Alf's *only* > >defence (if indeed this appears to be the case) will be to tell me the > >algorithm and show that he hasn't psyched it. This is fine, I can say > >to Alf "I am satisfied that you are using random minor openings and that > >your partner *could not* be in a position to field it. > > > >... which leads to a problem when he does decide to psyche it ... > > > > > Can I ask a question to which the answer may be blindingly obvious to > everyone else, in which case, I apologise? Why does this "Alf" chappie play > this method? Is there any bridge merit in it whatsoever, or does he just > want to do it as a fairly low-risk psyche designed to mess up the opponents > should they either have the minor he bids and doesn't have or end up > defending? The short answer is IMO yes. It is probably off topic to discuss further - email me if you would like my opinion. This is not a psyche - low risk or otherwise. It is a method that seems to me to be non-conventional excepting the possibility of opening the short suit when 5-2 in the minors. > Your description of him in an earlier post as 'ethical' seems to > me to be given the lie by his desire to play this absurd and dishonest > method. > I can understand why someone might think this method is absurd - although I do not agree with that judgement but I do not understand why you believe it to be dishonest. Certainly no more dishonest than opening a short minor when you have a perfectly respectable four-card major :-) > _________________________________________________________________ > 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/ > 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 Thu Mar 8 23:19:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28CJ8r15456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:19:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28CIvt15439 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:18:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA29258; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:15:01 +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 NAA26653; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:18:34 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010308132111.00841b90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:21:11 +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 09:14 8/03/01 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: > >Typical example - boards 4-6 arrive in the order 564 and are placed >centre table. East removes his hand. North, seeing the boards are out of >order switches to 456 (okay this is an infraction by North) and NWS remove >their hands. Now there is no way I can see that East's removal of the >cards for board 5 is anything other than "what he intended to do at the >time" - it just doesn't fit the "accepted meaning" of inadvertent given >above. AG : it does. The question is : was the infraction inadvertent ? ie, did the player intend to commit an infraction ? Here, did the player intend to remove his cards from the wrong board ? Answer : no. It is inadvertent. That's what L17 says. If somebody took his cards purposely out of the board, L17 would not be usable. Use 72B2 and adjust severely. Look at L50B1 : the PC is minor if (among other conditions) it was inadvertently exposed, that is, the player didn't intend to make its face seen. An unestablished revoke creates a MPC because the player intended to play the card. (the question is not, according to the law, whther he intended to revoke) 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 Mar 8 23:30:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28CUNp18082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:30:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28CU2t18008 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:30:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA02538; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:26:06 +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 NAA05148; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:29:40 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010308133217.007bdc70@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:32:17 +0100 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. 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 12:19 7/03/01 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >For note, these are only pseudo-random. These would be legal in and of >themselves. Turn it on its head. If we're allowed to make systems that >open 1C vs. 1D based on holdings of A's, K's, Q's, and J's, we can certainly >make systems based on holdings of 2's, 3's, 4's, and 5's. And if we can >base systems on # of spades vs. # of hearts, where's the problem with # of >reds vs. # of blacks? (Provided our aim in doing so is not to lose.) AG : I'd says these algorithms are unpracticable, because to put them into action would take some time, thus cerating UI that you have a balanced hand ... I have something easier to offer : when holding an opening (ie, more thazn your share of high cards), it is near 50/50 that the first card you see when picking your cards will be below a nine. (a priori probability of 7/13, but slightly lowered by the fact that you hold honors). And, after all, 'randomly' doesn't mean you have to use 50/50 frequency. Although, I suppose, frequency should be communicated to the opponents. >Illegal in the ACBL. You and your partner must play the same system/card. >The problem can't exist because partner will and must know the algorithm in >order that he play it too. AG : what if you decide to use each algorithms of your own creation, not communicating which one to partner ? Or, you create in common a number of different algorithms, and toss in secret a suitable dice before the session (or the round) begins to know which one you will adopt ? 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 Mar 8 23:37:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28Caet19774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:36:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28CaOt19699 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:36:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-205.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.205]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f28Ca6H24876 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:36:10 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA76521.BBCCAA3E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 11:55:29 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010305084150.00b6cb80@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010307083422.00ab9ee0@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: > > > I think we're overcomplicating the issue again. Are we ? Who is ? > The difference between > the EBU and the RotW comes into play only when we're "adjusting" for > self-inflicted damage *which might not have occurred absent the > infraction*. > The EBU does not, while the RotW might, award +430 in 3NT > (or make some other type of adjustment) after declarer played 3S and > revoked for +420, because the play would have gone quite differently, > and declarer might well have not revoked. Agreed. The EBU does not, the RotW would probably not. > This is even clearer in the > case in which declarer miscounted trumps; no matter how irrational it > may have been to miscount trumps in 3S, he would not have miscounted > trumps in 3NT! > Completely agreed. > But when declarer, who has revoked (or miscounted trumps) in 3S, is > given the result for 4S -- unless we have reason to believe that the > play would have gone differently in 4S, with which Herman has no > problem -- we simply rule that it is not at all likely that declarer > would have played differently at 4S and make a straigtforward L12C2 > ruling; the possibility of +450 at 4S is not a consideration. > So a declarer who revokes in one contract does not suffer, while one who is in a different contract does ? Hardly seems fair to me ! I agree with the "suboptimal play" case, mainly because we would adjust in L12C3 to an average - so there is no escape to a supraoptimal play. But the revoke ? Either we make player suffer for his revoke in all cases, or in neither, but not according to the strain of the table contract, that is not fair. > 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/ -- 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 Mar 8 23:39:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28CbcF19956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:37:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Cawt19868 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:36:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-205.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.205]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f28CatH25188 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:36:55 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA7757A.DE647B02@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:05:14 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > I'm not convinced that either your or Herman's view is supported by the > current Law. > Ehm, Todd. Either David is right, or I am (I believe) Or maybe neither of us is, but then there must be a third view. Please tell us Todd's position then. -- 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 Mar 8 23:43:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28ChLk21448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:43:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28ChDt21406 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:43:14 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA01549; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:42:53 +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 NAA15088; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:42:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010308134526.008035c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:45:26 +0100 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D1@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:21 8/03/01 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: >Talking about aids to memory, calculation or technique I don't think that we >ment to say that using a random-outcome-procedure to make a decision is >illegal. But that is questionable, I agree. AG : in the TBW feature I already mentioned (Bridge Movie), it was argued that, if you are disallowed to use a computer for making calculations at the bridge table (yes, you are), it is because it does something you wouldn't be able to do without it. For the same reason, watch-based algorithms should be disallowed. But it would be quite difficult to disallow a bridge player to look at one's cards (although I know of some that give out the impression not to do it :-} ). There remains the case of the declarer mixing his own cards to generate the probability. How could you disallow *that* ? You could disallow it to defenders, L73A2 and 74C4. 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 Mar 8 23:53:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28CrNB24074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:53:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Cqxt24002 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:53:01 +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 f28CqsU82655 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 07:52:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010308073850.00ab5880@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, 08 Mar 2001 07:52:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <01030714595502.02076@psa836> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010307083422.00ab9ee0@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010305084150.00b6cb80@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010307083422.00ab9ee0@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 09:58 AM 3/7/01, David wrote: >On Wed, 07 Mar 2001, Eric Landau wrote: > > > But when declarer, who has revoked (or miscounted trumps) in 3S, is > > given the result for 4S -- unless we have reason to believe that the > > play would have gone differently in 4S, with which Herman has no > > problem -- we simply rule that it is not at all likely that declarer > > would have played differently at 4S and make a straigtforward L12C2 > > ruling; the possibility of +450 at 4S is not a consideration. > >Suppose that the play is not careless or irrational; do you use the >same principle? For example, suppose that 11 tricks depends on guessing >the SQ. Declarer, playing in 3S rather than 4S due to MI, guesses wrong >and makes +170. Do you now adjust to +420 (or, under L12C, an equal >weighting of +420 and +450)? +420 under either law with the usual caveat -- unless I have reason to believe that the play might have gone differently in 4S than in 3S. The principle is that, given an action by a non-offender, once we determine that it is not at all probable that he would have taken some alternative action in the awarded contract, it makes no difference whether it is wild, gambling or irrational. We don't worry about whether we have cause to "deny redress" on the basis of self-inflicted damage when there's no reason for redress to begin with (which is what I meant by "a straightfoward L12C2 ruling"). If, OTOH, there is reason to believe that declarer might have guessed the SQ correctly in 4S, he gets +450 in the ACBL, while the RoW may determine the probability of his getting it right and award a weighted score under L12C3. 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 Mar 8 23:54:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28Cb0C19860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:37:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Cact19768 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:36:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-205.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.205]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f28CaRH25019 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:36:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA76647.E97DFF25@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 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] Brighton Appeals 2000 References: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <200102222010.MAA08741@mailhub.irvine.com> 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: > > > This explains Herman's bidding? > -- Nothing can explain my bidding. Yesterday I held AQxx xxxxx xx xx and I doubled after 1Cl-pass-1Di. When partner next doubled 1NT, I knew we were in for bottom number 14 of the night. No, it was top number one, as declarer had an easy 9 tricks (+580 against +600). -- 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 Mar 8 23:56:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28CuXq24939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:56:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28CuGt24875 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:56:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA10848; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:52:21 +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 NAA25170; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:55:55 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010308135832.00848100@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: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:58:32 +0100 To: "Norman Scorbie" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] theory of random minors. 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 f28CuJt24890 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:31 8/03/01, Norman Scorbie wrote: > >Can I ask a question to which the answer may be blindingly obvious to >everyone else, in which case, I apologise? Why does this "Alf" chappie play >this method? Is there any bridge merit in it whatsoever, or does he just >want to do it as a fairly low-risk psyche designed to mess up the opponents >should they either have the minor he bids and doesn't have or end up >defending? Your description of him in an earlier post as 'ethical' seems to >me to be given the lie by his desire to play this absurd and dishonest >method. AG : absurd ? You say it. I explain hereafter why I don't. Dishonest ? You have to tell me why. A score years ago, a great bridge theorist called Jean-René Vernes discovered, based on ststistical analysis of championship deals, that rules for deciding which minor to open on a balanced hand without a good major (good enough to be opened in your system, whatever that means) were bad : they gave more information to the oppoennts than they did to partner. This creates several new ideas about systems : 1) use 1C and 1D in a somewhat artificial sense, like opening 1C on balanced hands when you hold a 4-card major, and 1D when you don't (playing 5-card majors) ; or opening 1C on 11-12 or 18, and 1D on 13-14 or 19-20 (alternatively, if you play 10-12 NT, open 1C on 13-14 or 17-18 and 1D on 15-16 or 19-20) . I know of players using those methods, and they seem to have success with them. 2) use the same requirements for a 1D opening as you do for 1H and 1S, leaving only 1C loosely determined. I like this style. 3) Random minors. Why, I ask you, why would item #3 be more absurd than the others ? I would not use random minors, but only because I shy away from any bidding principle that would substantially affect my usually fast tempo. But, given that choosing your minor opening according to a simple rule (like longest minor, best in case of equal number) seems to work badly, why not suppress any rule ? 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 Mar 9 00:09:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28D8nt28272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:08:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr ([137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28D8Qt28204 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:08:28 +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 NAA06592 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:08:14 GMT Message-ID: <3AA78459.2EC93DBF@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 14:08:41 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie a écrit : > > John Probst wrote: > > > >... and a player says to me (the TD), "I think Alf (the player's name) > >is opening his shorter suit more often than the longer." Alf's *only* > >defence (if indeed this appears to be the case) will be to tell me the > >algorithm and show that he hasn't psyched it. This is fine, I can say > >to Alf "I am satisfied that you are using random minor openings and that > >your partner *could not* be in a position to field it. > > > >... which leads to a problem when he does decide to psyche it ... > > > > > Can I ask a question to which the answer may be blindingly obvious to > everyone else, in which case, I apologise? Why does this "Alf" chappie play > this method? Is there any bridge merit in it whatsoever, or does he just > want to do it as a fairly low-risk psyche designed to mess up the opponents > should they either have the minor he bids and doesn't have or end up > defending? Your description of him in an earlier post as 'ethical' seems to > me to be given the lie by his desire to play this absurd and dishonest > method. I can understand (without needing to agree) the desire to play this method: this player may think the information about the lenghts of his minors would be more helpful to opponents than to partner. Il would then probably be more appropriate to open 1C all balanced hands and use 1D for some other purpose but it is not the problem. However i don't see anything dishonest in the method, when properly disclosed. It has not been described in depth and, according to the chosen algorithm, it would not be the same thing to choose to open randomly 1C or 1D, or to open the longer or the shorter minor. There would be some simple algorithm, using only the input of your hand, leading to 50-50, giving no clue about your hand and disclosable to partner, opponents and TD: you take the 2 cards on the top of your pack of 13 cards and ask yourself which one, the first or the second one, is the higher ranking. JP Rocafort > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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/ -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 00:24:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28CbQj19931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:37:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Caot19830 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:36:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-205.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.205]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f28CakH25125 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:36:46 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA77204.682F0E65@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 12:50:28 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <3AA4D286.202C47C9@village.uunet.be> <008701c0a754$67db7160$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> <01030716535603.02076@psa836> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman here, nitpicking as usual : David J Grabiner wrote: > > > Suppose that LHO holds his cards carelessly and you see his SQ. You > are entitled to use that information in the play, but you have no right > to that information unless it happens to come up. > You are allowed to use that information, but you are not entitled to it. If you are blind, and opponent holds his cards so that you should have been able to see it, you cannot call the TD and claim that he should now also tell you his hand, because you are entitled to this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 00:32:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28DWFL04101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:32:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl ([145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28DVrt04030 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:31:54 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA06375; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 14:31:45 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 08 14:35:11 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 <01K0YH6MEC1G00467S@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 14:30:34 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 14:25:32 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 14:30:26 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D6@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 > > AG : in the TBW feature I already mentioned (Bridge Movie), > it was argued > that, if you are disallowed to use a computer for making > calculations at > the bridge table (yes, you are), it is because it does something you > wouldn't be able to do without it. For the same reason, watch-based > algorithms should be disallowed. Well, if we accept that reason you could be right, but I don't. It implies that somebody being able to calculate huge (amounts of) numbers using his brains should be allowed to use the computer for it. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 00:39:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28CbEL19902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:37:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.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 f28Cait19800 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:36:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-205.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.205]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f28CaeH25083 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:36:40 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA767B0.B2E288F8@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 12:06:24 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] How to adjust - a summary References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010305092442.00b68c90@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010307075331.00b60570@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: > > > > >Example : > > > >A player needs to chose between a heart and a spade lead. > >Spades turn out to be the better. > > > >There has been misinformation. > > > >The AC decides that with correct information, the spade lead > >has a certain probability. > >But with the (erroneous) actual information, a spade lead is > >far more likely. > >Yet the player chooses the heart lead. > >Do we adjust ? > > > >I don't ! > > But this is not an example of case (1d). yes it is. case 1d) A > B2 > A1 remember that B2 > B > B1 so we are in A > B : no damage. > Here, the same lead against > the same contract with or without the MI yields the same result. So > A1=B1 and A2=B2. Case (1d) occurs when A>B2>A1, which requires A2>B2. > OK. The example is badly chosen. But the question is still : when the expected result diminishes for OS, can there still be compensation. > The AC here is not weighing probabilities. They are making a > straightforward L12C2 ruling. They are simply deciding that, given the > above, a spade lead absent the MI is not "at all probable", so no > adjustment. > But the lead is probable - it just didn't happen. Does that make it unprobable ? I don't like to think so. Either we take the player's actions into account ALL of the time, or we do it never. But we should not take his actions into account just because the situations are still somewhat similar. > 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/ -- 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 Mar 9 00:41:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28Cbbl19952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:37:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Cavt19862 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:36:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-205.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.205]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f28CaqH25173 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:36:53 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA774C8.F9129BFA@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:02:16 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <200103072242.RAA10140@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00a101c0a764$eca3cd60$f59e7ad5@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: > > > These are deep waters. The other day, someone at the club opened 2H, not > alerted (under EBU regulations, weak two bids are alertable, strong two > bids are not). I had some hand on which I would perhaps have acted over > a weak 2H, but because of the non-alert I assumed a strong 2H, and > passed. LHO bid 4H. Partner now asked what 2H was, and passed on being > told that it was strong (correctly, for such was apparently the > agreement). We defended 4H undoubled down four, poor compensation for a > cold game our way. > > Now, under the actual conditions, this result was "normal" in that we > had no redress under the Laws. In effect, my RHO had psyched, and there > is no law against that. But... had we been playing with screens, I would > have been told by my RHO that 2H was weak, NO David - you would have been told that 2H was STRONG. You say he psyched. If he had forgotten, then, yes, he would have told you that it was weak - and that would have been MI ! > and would (perhaps) not have > passed; or, partner would have been told by her LHO that 2H was weak, > and would (certainly) not have passed. This is what is wrong with the > "imaginary screen" test. The situation was exacerbated when LHO said to > RHO: "That's the second time you've forgotten tonight!" Does this create > disclosable partnership experience, Grattan? > There is no problem with this ruling behind screens, really not, David. I may not have the experience you have of playing behind them, but I certainly have the experience of directing them (screens are in use throughout Belgium's 3 national divisions - that's 100 teams !) Trust me, there are no problems that we as TD have not solved a 100 times already. > I believe it to be both illogical and impractical that we have to > implement rules which say: it is possible to fix your opponents by > forgetting your system in certain circumstances, but not in others. I > know that these are the rules at the moment; I know why they are the > rules; as an official I will of course continue to implement those > rules. But on a personal level, I do not agree with them. Kaplan said to > me in Albuquerque that he believed forgetting your system ought to be > punishable under Law 74B1, since it constituted paying insufficient > attention to the game. I know what he meant. > That is an altogether different question. I am in favour of a strict application myself : prove the system (very strongly) or you have committed MI. And behind screens, it's even nicer : there is always MI at one side or the other, so there is even more chance of a (favourable) ruling. And you even get the chance of the better of two rulings. Really David, screens are an added bonus to the opponents of misbidders. > 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 Fri Mar 9 00:48:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28CbUN19939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:37:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Cast19852 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:36:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-205.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.205]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f28CaoH25161 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:36:50 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA7734B.CFABAEF2@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 12:55:55 +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] Ghestem again! References: <3AA4D286.202C47C9@village.uunet.be> <008701c0a754$67db7160$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> <01030716535603.02076@psa836> <00bc01c0a76c$f8f3aec0$f59e7ad5@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: > > > Quite so. Playing with real screens solves a large number of practical > problems with the Laws, but it creates the specific problem that I was > attempting to address: although I am not allowed to know that RHO has > hearts and diamonds, I will (if I am his screen-mate) know it. Now, of > course, I really do have information to which I am not entitled. What am > I to do with this information? > Use it. You are allowed to. But when it turns out to be wrong, the redress you get will be based on the correct information, not on both. > It seems to me necessary to address in some way the problem created by > the fact that, playing with real screens, there will be situations in > which East and West, through no fault of their own but through an error > (which may or may not be an irregularity) by North and South, (probably always an irregularity - at least one explanation is wrong) > are > operating with completely different sets of data. As a practical matter, > one could attempt to resolve these situations by recourse to the > existing Laws, but there are a number of objections to this. Simpler, or > so it seems to me, is to make the assumption that East and West have the > same data available to them both. After all, if North-South knew their > methods, that is what would happen. > Yes, they would provide EW with one set of data, both the same, and both correct. They would not provide EW with two sets of data ! > Received wisdom (and, indeed, the current Laws) holds that it is not in > itself an infraction to forget your side's methods. There are > circumstances in which you can do this "without penalty", and indeed > with considerable benefit to your side. I don't have any quarrel with > this as such; I say merely that if a set of conditions (screens) makes > it more likely that a side will profit from its own error in certain > circumstances, that set of conditions should be examined in order to > reduce the likelihood, or at any rate to restore it to what it was > before the conditions were imposed. > > A disclaimer: I know what the rules are, and I know that they are not as > I would like them to be in this area. It is quite likely that I have > more experience of playing with real screens than most BLML subscribers > except Peter Gill, and it may be that this problem is exercising my mind > to a greater extent than it ought to be because of that. I believe that screens are just one way of expressing more fundamental principles inscribed in the laws. > I have myself > encountered a situation in which after a typical Burn-Callaghan joke > auction, I explained my side's methods correctly to my screen-mate. He > let through 3NT doubled in consequence; then he said: "If I'd been > sitting on the other side of the screen, and heard the wrong > explanation, the contract would have been four down." This was quite > true, and led me to the belief that in fairness, the fate of the > contract ought not to have been quite as arbitrary as it turned out to > be. If we had not goofed, or if a bit of wood had been placed one way > rather than the other, they would have been the British team that year > instead of us. And then we would have missed the opportunity of seeing DB disagreeing with a law that provided him with a semi-final birth ! > "Either I'm too sensitive, or else I'm getting soft" (Bob > Dylan). > > 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 Fri Mar 9 00:51:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28DpeD09005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:51:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f28DpGt08930 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:51:17 +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 f28DpC560993 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:51:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010308083731.00b6b830@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, 08 Mar 2001 08:50:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3AA76521.BBCCAA3E@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010305084150.00b6cb80@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010307083422.00ab9ee0@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 05:55 AM 3/8/01, Herman wrote: >So a declarer who revokes in one contract does not suffer, >while one who is in a different contract does ? >Hardly seems fair to me ! It's not a matter of what contract they're in; it's a matter of what contract they would have been in absent the irregularity. L12C2 directs us to determine "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". If it's not "likely" that there would have been no revoke absent the irregularity, then the revoke was not a consequence of the irregularity, and it stands. If, OTOH, it occurred in a position that could only have occurred given the irregularity, we should not assume that some other revoke in some completely different position was any more likely than it would have been had there not been a revoke in the contract that resulted from the irregularity, and we adjust the score on that basis. >I agree with the "suboptimal play" case, mainly because we >would adjust in L12C3 to an average - so there is no escape >to a supraoptimal play. >But the revoke ? Either we make player suffer for his >revoke in all cases, or in neither, but not according to the >strain of the table contract, that is not fair. We make the player suffer for a revoke that they would (at some sufficiently high level of probability, i.e. that level at which their not revoking is not considered "likely") have committed had there been no infraction, and not make them suffer for a revoke that they would not (ditto) have committed had there been no infraction. Sounds fair to me. 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 Mar 9 00:54:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28DsMx09718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:54:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Drrt09634 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:53:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA00150; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 14:49:57 +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 OAA14017; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 14:53:30 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010308145606.0083b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 14:56:06 +0100 To: "Roger Pewick" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] theory of random minors. In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010308135832.00848100@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 07:33 8/03/01 -0600, you wrote: > >rp >this seems to ignore the premise of providing info that is more useful to >the opponents. just what i want my enemy to do, find their major suit fit >more often when it is there and not look for it when it is more likely i can >penalize it. AG : you mean there are times where it is useful to give the enemy a maximum info, to see how they use it, so that you could use at your turn the info provided by their bids ? Very interesting idea, and too often brushed aside. Most probably because nobody likes to rely on opp's judgement. There is at least one case where I apply it : overcalling a suit, ratehr than making a 2-suited overcall, to see whether the opps are confident in their ability to stop the suit. If they are, lead the other suit ... >2) use the same requirements for a 1D opening as you do for 1H and 1S, >leaving only 1C loosely determined. I like this style. > >rp >i think this is an application of the theory. but i am curious about how >good a high hurdler you are . AG : very bad, I can ensure you, being somewhat humpty-dumpty shaoped. But I'd like to understand the remark. What grammatical subtlety makes this an irresistible pun ? Best 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 Mar 9 00:54:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28CbQc19928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:37:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Camt19819 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:36:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-205.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.205]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f28CagH25098 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:36:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA77195.B7EC05E3@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 12:48:37 +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] Ghestem again! References: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@pbncomputer> <3AA4D286.202C47C9@village.uunet.be> <008701c0a754$67db7160$f59e7ad5@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: > > Herman wrote: > > > > (but, following the de Wael view for the moment, East-West > > > do not know - because they are not allowed to know - that South > thinks > > > that North has the round suits). What would have happened? > > > > What is the De wael point in this ? Isn't this a general > > principle ? > > No. As far as I know, you were the first person to state as a > "principle" that the opponents are not allowed to know that your side is > in the middle of a misunderstanding. I believe it is a principle that is more generally held to be true than just by me. Maybe I was the one who first pronounced it on blml, but I did certainly not invent it. Maybe there is some confusion about the words allowed and entitled. Without starting a semantics discussion with the great DB, I am using allowed as : "when you have it, you may use it" and entitled as "when you don't have it, you may get redress". > It is not, as it happens, a > principle in which I believe, and the remark below is somewhat > confusing to me: probably because you did not notice the different use of allowed and entitled, and you yourself changed one entitled into an allowed above, and you change one allowed into an entitled below. > > > A player is allowed to use the information that opponents > > are having a misunderstanding, but he is not entitled to > > that information. > Exactly : if he knows it, he can use it, but if he doesn't, there is no reason for redress. > How can a player be entitled to use information that he is not entitled > to have? He is allowed to use it, but he is not entitled to have it. > I suspect that we may be at cross-purposes here, though. > Suppose I know (from previous experience) that when North bids 3C, he > always has the red suits, but then South tells me that he has the round > suits. Or, suppose I guess (because I have a lot of clubs) that South's > explanation is wrong. Quite correct. You know it, and you are allowed to use it. But you have no ground for redress if you are playing against unknown opponents or when you don't have a lot of clubs. > Now, I assume from what you say (and I believe it > to be correct) that I am entitled to let my opponents get on with their > disaster; of course you are. But i'd use "allowed". > I do not have to take any particular steps to protect myself > from damage. You don't have to. You are allowed to simply go on from the explanation. After all, you might be wrong in thinking that they are having a misunderstanding. > This may be what you mean by the assertion above. > No it is not. > However, I think that I am at all times allowed to know what my > opponents' methods actually are. Indeed. But you are entitled to it - not allowed. Entitled is more than allowed, if my feeling for the English language is close to being correct. When I say that you are allowed to know something, that does not mean that you "need to know". If I don't tell it to you, you have no reason to ask for redress. But when you are entitled to know something, and I don't tell you, you can sue me. > Thus, if my RHO makes a bid that shows > hearts and diamonds, I am allowed to know that this is what it shows. If > my LHO then explains it as hearts and clubs, I am allowed to know that > my opponents are in the middle of a misunderstanding, even if the only > reason I have for this knowledge is South's explanation, rather than my > own hand, or past experience, or knowledge of the players concerned. > You are "allowed" to know that LHO thinks it is hearts and clubs, and you are "entitled" to know that RHO has shown hearts and diamonds, but you are not "entitled" to know that LHO thinks it is hearts and clubs. So when adjusting, we adjust to what would have happened had they told you it was hearts and diamonds, but we do not adjust to what would have happened had you known it was diamonds AND partner thought it was clubs. > > Behind screens, either opponent that receives, from North, > > the correct information (reds), would not know that South > > thinks it is rounds. Nor is he entitled to know this. > > This, of course, is the crux of the problem. As a practical matter (if > the screen runs from north-west to south-east, as is usual): West will > know that South thinks North has the round suits (but he will not know > what North actually has); East will know that North has the red suits > (but he will not know what South thinks that North has). > Screens are a correct medium to realize the scope of the Information Laws as I (and quite some others interpret them). You get one information (possible a wrong one) but you don't necessarily receive information that you are not entitled to (IMO). > Now, I do not think that this is a practical basis on which either to > play or to administer the game. It is simply not fair to expect East and > West to make sensible and informed decisions while they are operating > not only in the dark, but in different darkrooms. We do this all the time. We try and find out what would happen. And this is sometimes quite strange. Of course you are going to misinterpret (and misexplain) partner's bidding because you don't know he got a different explanation than you did. That's what the TD is there for, to sort out this mess. > I think that by > default, both East and West should know what North has shown; moreover, > both East and West should know what explanations have been handed out by > South. If NS suffer more damage than they would otherwise have suffered > in consequence - well, perhaps next time they will arrive at the table > playing a system that they both know, and can both explain to their > opponents. > That is a good enough argument for your position, but I don't believe it is the correct position. It would change screens bridge from table bridge. > In short, I think that rather than the current "imaginary screen" test, > one should use an "imaginary four-way screen" test, in which both East > and West hear North explain his bid as the red suits, while South > explains it as the round suits. After all, this is (in effect) what > happens when screens are not in use (assuming that NS abide by their > ethical responsibilities). No it is not ! When South explains it as rounds, North is by Law forbidden to correct this to reds ! Whatever the DwS position about how he should next explain south's bid, he is not allowed to correct the explanation of his own. How can something be entitled to opponents, when it is not even allowed to be expressed ? I believe that the situation is as I describe it, and I don't believe I am alone in that belief. For once, we have a DBS ! > > > > Would East have doubled 3C? Of course he would, since that is what > he > > > did. > > > > ehm ... why is it important what he did ? he got wrong > > information, remember ? > > True, but since he was willing to double a red-suited 3C with DKxx, > there is some evidence for the notion that he would have been prepared > to double a round-suited 3C with CAxx. However, since in the former case > both of his minor-suit tops were likely tricks, while in the latter case > the DK may have been of no use at all, there is certainly some chance > that he would not have doubled 3C. > > > I am not saying that he would not have doubled, but if there > > is some chance that he would not have done, 3C undoubled may > > well become a "likely" or "probable" outcome, which might be > > placed among the rest to determine what the AS is going to > > be. > > Not really. If East had not doubled 3C, South would without doubt have > raised it, which is why 5C doubled was being suggested as a possible > outcome (and correctly so). > > > > Would South have passed? Yes, for that is what he did - remember, > > > we are assuming that it is only East-West (and North) who know that > > > North has the red suits. > > > > This is the only certainty that we have in all the case. > > We would even be able to assume that he would have passed > > 3Cl undoubled. > > No, we would not. Any bridge player with South's hand: xxxxx None Axxx > KJxx would without question raise clubs if he thought his partner had > five of them - whether to 4C or 5C is perhaps a matter for judgement, > but pass is inconceivable. Of course, when 3C was doubled, South had > good reason to pass - after all, it might become the final contract. > > > > Would North have removed 3C > > > doubled? We don't know, for we don't know what South's pass meant. > If it > > > meant "pick a red suit", then North might bid 3D, passed by East, > raised > > > by South, and... Or, North might bid 3H (his better red suit), > doubled > > > by East, corrected by South, and... If, on the other hand, South's > pass > > > meant "I want to play 3C doubled even though I know you have the > reds", > > > then 3C doubled would be the final contract, down several. > > > > There we are, Alain's adjustment again. > > Well... if West had been told that South had a string of clubs, he might > not have passed 3C doubled in any case (given that he bid 3S at the > table). Remember that West is allowed to know that East has doubled a > red-suited 3C; this double says nothing about clubs, and West may very > well have reappraised the situation over a pass by South that showed a > large number of clubs. Of course, there is no doubt that he would have > passed 3C doubled had he known that his opponents were in the middle of > a misunderstanding, and that - inter alia - is why he ought in my view > to be permitted this knowledge. > > > North knows partner thinks he has clubs and hearts, and he > > should not use that UI. > > If we assume that pass means "pick a red one" then passing > > is not a LA. > > Bidding diamonds and hearts are LAs > > Does the UI suggest diamonds or hearts ? > > Neither, but the UI suggests that South knows North has hearts, while he > does not know that North has diamonds. Thus, the UI strongly suggests > that North show his diamonds, in order to elicit preference between the > red suits from his partner. Of course, an educated North in this > position will redouble, which suggests a marginal preference for > hearts - but although it is perhaps far-fetched to consider 3C redoubled > a possible outcome, it is certainly not as implausible as it may seem at > first sight. It is one that cannot conceivably be achieved, however, if > the HdW "principle" alluded to above is accepted. > > 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/ -- 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 Mar 9 01:00:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28E0b711226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:00:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28E0Nt11156 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:00:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14b0H5-000FXG-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:16:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 01:42:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@pbncomputer> <3AA4D286.202C47C9@village.uunet.be> <008701c0a754$67db7160$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <008701c0a754$67db7160$f59e7ad5@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 >Herman wrote: > >> > (but, following the de Wael view for the moment, East-West >> > do not know - because they are not allowed to know - that South >thinks >> > that North has the round suits). What would have happened? >> >> What is the De wael point in this ? Isn't this a general >> principle ? > >No. As far as I know, you were the first person to state as a >"principle" that the opponents are not allowed to know that your side is >in the middle of a misunderstanding. It is not, as it happens, a >principle in which I believe, The principle as I understand it refers to adjustments. When bidding and playing a hand you have a perfect right to deduce, and if your LHO says 4NT is Quantitative, and your RHO says the 5C response shows 0 or 3 aces you have a perfect right to make the obvious deduction. It is at your own risk, which means that, while they may not mislead you, if you have mis-deduced why the explanations are inconsistent, that is tough. But if there is MI, and we adjust, for the purposes of the adjustment we assume the other side have full and complete knowledge about the methods [even though the pair themselves do not have]. But what we do not do is to adjust on the basis of full information about the methods *and* knowledge of a misunderstanding. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 01:05:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28E5Iw12584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:05:18 +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 f28E4tt12507 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:04:56 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA16558; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 15:04:36 +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 PAA23185; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 15:04:32 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010308150709.00844180@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 15:07:09 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! In-Reply-To: <3AA77204.682F0E65@village.uunet.be> References: <3AA4D286.202C47C9@village.uunet.be> <008701c0a754$67db7160$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> <01030716535603.02076@psa836> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:50 8/03/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Herman here, nitpicking as usual : > >David J Grabiner wrote: >> >> >> Suppose that LHO holds his cards carelessly and you see his SQ. You >> are entitled to use that information in the play, but you have no right >> to that information unless it happens to come up. >> > >You are allowed to use that information, but you are not >entitled to it. >If you are blind, and opponent holds his cards so that you >should have been able to see it, you cannot call the TD and >claim that he should now also tell you his hand, because you >are entitled to this. If you are blind, how would you know he does ? :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 01:39:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28EWJi19166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:32:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28EVVt19070 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:31:33 +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 f28EVPo63793 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:31:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010308085907.00b6ee50@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, 08 Mar 2001 09:30:20 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010308133217.007bdc70@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think we're losing the forest for the trees. We have a player who wants to use a method in which with a balanced hand unsuitable for a major opening he opens either minor at random, with equal probability, regardless of his minor-suit lengths. The question on the table is whether this is legal. The consensus seems to be that it is legal provided the "random" choice is not subject to bias or patterns that will, over time, allow partner to "guess" the "random" result with greater accuracy than opponents. Simply "guessing" which minor to bid each time it comes up will almost inevitably produce such bias or patterns. The alternative is to employ some kind of secret pseudo-random number generating algorithm which which will reduce bias and patterns to a level at which partner cannot be expected to deduce them (either consciously or intuitively). This must (if we agree that the randomization is legal to begin with) not only be allowed, but is what an ethical player would be expected to do. From a legal perspective, if we allow randomization, our concern should be that the method chosen to determine the random action should be unbiased and opaque, which, because of the necessity for opaqueness, can only be determined by observing outcomes, just as would be the case for pure guessing. I don't see where the law does or should concern itself with such trivial concerns as the relative legality, given acceptable opaqueness, of picking the seed by counting red cards or beer glasses. To summarize, our concern should be with whether randomization is legal per se, and, if so, just how "random" we require our random actions to be, not with the details of how the randomization is effected. 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 Mar 9 01:56:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28Etv825339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:55:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f28Etft25272 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:55:41 +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 f28EtaS48890 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:55:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010308094240.00b67100@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, 08 Mar 2001 09:55:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] How to adjust - a summary In-Reply-To: <3AA767B0.B2E288F8@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010305092442.00b68c90@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010307075331.00b60570@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:06 AM 3/8/01, Herman wrote: >But the lead is probable - it just didn't happen. Does that >make it unprobable ? I don't like to think so. The lead is *a priori* probable, but once it didn't happen, the actual probability of its having happened is zero. From this, it is legitimate to deduce that the probability of its happening in a hypothetically identical situation under identical circumstances is zero. >Either we take the player's actions into account ALL of the >time, or we do it never. But we should not take his actions >into account just because the situations are still somewhat >similar. I believe we should, because that is what L12C2 directs us to do. At one extreme, we know that the player is 100% likely to make the same lead against the same contract in the same situation under the same circumstances. At the other, we know that they are 0% likely to make the same lead against a contract at which they are not on lead. In between those extremes, L12C2 tells us that we must determine whether some other lead "was likely had the irregularity not occurred". To do that we must assess the "similarity" of the situation in which the actual lead was chosen with the situation that would have occurred "had the irregularity not occured". 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 Mar 9 02:11:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28FB3s29137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:11:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28FAat29056 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:10:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.71.32] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14b23i-0000qy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 15:10:31 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c0a7e1$e0f35ee0$2047073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200103072242.RAA10140@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00a101c0a764$eca3cd60$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> <3AA774C8.F9129BFA@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 15:10:12 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > > Now, under the actual conditions, this result was "normal" in that we > > had no redress under the Laws. In effect, my RHO had psyched, and there > > is no law against that. But... had we been playing with screens, I would > > have been told by my RHO that 2H was weak, > > NO David - you would have been told that 2H was STRONG. > You say he psyched. He didn't psyche. He forgot. That is why he would have told me that 2H was weak. What I said was that the effect was the same as if he had psyched. > If he had forgotten, then, yes, he would have told you that > it was weak - and that would have been MI ! It may very well have been. But my side would graciously accept that we had not been damaged by it. Not nearly as damaged as we were on the actual deal, certainly. > Really David, screens are an added bonus to the opponents of > misbidders. I know they are, in the majority of cases. But some of the time, they are not, because the opponents of the misbidders know less about what is going on than they would know if the screens were not there. What is more, each opponent "knows" something different, and does not "know" something that his partner does "know". (I use quotation marks because, of course, some of the data that is handed out is false; one cannot know a falsehood.) That is what strikes me as illogical. 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 Mar 9 02:54:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28Fjlu02689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:45:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Fj9t02596 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:45:10 +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 f28Fj4S52215 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:45:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010308101200.00b64d50@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, 08 Mar 2001 10:44:51 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D7@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:56 AM 3/8/01, Kooijman wrote: >We are talking about a matter of interpretation and application. The >principle of the distinction between subsequent and consequent is >known and >accepted for many years already. We have forgotten to apply that approach >when establishing adjusted scores. Time to start. The principle of treating (merely) subsequent and consequent damage differently has been known and accepted for many years, but I do not believe that we have yet generally accepted a principle for determining the distinction between them. I argue that the correct distinction is the one stated in L12C2; damage which was not "likely had the irregularity not occurred" is consequent damage; damage that was "likely had the irregularity not occurred" is merely subsequent. >I really don't think that keeping mumbling that since a player never >should >have been in this position he can't be hold responsible for his behaving >anymore, is a constructive approach. But you may of course inform the >drafting committee for the new laws about your opinion. > >Isn't it true that when we extend your principle nobody can be kept >responsible for anything anymore, since unexpected and not acceptable >things >tend to happen all the time? 'I can't help it, I was told him to be >the guy, >so I should not have been put in this position', said the murderer after >shooting the wrong one. And what about all thse kids born 9 months >after an >electricity collapse in New York a decade or so ago? Normal in LA >nowadays. >They shouldn't exist, is it? This to be extended to the roling and >going of >our beloved earth on this perfect day an the following. I think that's backwards. Ton's "principle" would have the murderer who shot the wrong person saying "the guy I shot had no business being in the vicinity looking like my intended victim, so it's his own fault, not mine, that he's dead". Not true -- unless the victim was doing something illegal to cause his being shot. If someone comes into my store brandishing a water pistol and tells me to empty the cash register into his bag or he'll shoot me dead, I am not guilty of murder if I shoot him "in self-defence" despite the fact that I was in no danger of my being harmed, notwithstanding the "irrationality" of the idea that I could be killed by a water pistol. If someone illegally puts me in a position in which I make an error (even an "egregious" error) that I could not have made had he not acted illegally, my error was a consequence of the illegality. He has perpetrated an illegal act of which I am the victim, and the consequences of that act should fall on him, not on me. We should not each be punished as though we are each respectively presumed to have been at fault for the outcome. I agree with Ton that we should adjust scores only for consequent damage; as he says, that has been generally accepted for many years. Now we can get back to arguing about what "consequent damage" *is* in the context of the bridge laws. 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 Mar 9 02:55:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28FtLQ04949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:55:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Fswt04874 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:54:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA10497; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:51:00 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id QAA23359; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:54:33 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010308165710.0083bc40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 16:57:10 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010308085907.00b6ee50@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20010308133217.007bdc70@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 09:30 8/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >To summarize, our concern should be with whether randomization is legal >per se AG : it must be. Many authors advocate playing a random card from QJ bare (or J109 bare), and they are right, game-theoretically. This idea is rooted solidly enough in the world of competitive bridge. Now, if randomness is admited, even encouraged, in the play, how can one justify discouraging it in the bidding ? Provided, of course, that the methods are deemd legal. In Belgium, opening both 1C on 3352 and 1D on 3325 would probably be disallowed at level C (3rd in a scale of 7, local pairs tournament), unless it is based on strength (eg, playing Strong Club). and, if so, just how "random" we require our random actions to >be, not with the details of how the randomization is effected. AG : there is *no* absolute random method. Jean-Pierre's idea, shuffling one's cards before looking at them and (if the hand happens to be balanced and within range) opening 1C if the 1st card picked up is higher than the 2nd, 1D else, resolving ties by the rank of the suit, is of a very high level of pseudo-randomness. I would certainly allow it, especially since (surprise !) it can be easily described and partner will not be able tu guess anything. Neither would opponents, BTW. One would also have to be careful to describe what we call a balanced hand. 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 Mar 9 03:02:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28G1kM06549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:01:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28G1St06487 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:01:29 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id RAA05169; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:01:09 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id RAA27992; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:01:05 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010308170343.008105c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:03:43 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! In-Reply-To: <3AA77195.B7EC05E3@village.uunet.be> References: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@pbncomputer> <3AA4D286.202C47C9@village.uunet.be> <008701c0a754$67db7160$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:48 8/03/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Without starting a semantics discussion with the great DB, I >am using allowed as : "when you have it, you may use it" >and entitled as "when you don't have it, you may get >redress". AG : seems semantically quite correct. Note that there are both allowed-not-entitled cases (there are MI), but I feel it difficult to find an entitled-not-allowed case. Tell me why I'm wrong. 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 Mar 9 03:24:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28GOjS11086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:24:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28GOYt11038 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:24:35 +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 14b3DH-000NVy-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:24:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:20:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <3.0.6.32.20010308133217.007bdc70@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010308085907.00b6ee50@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010308165710.0083bc40@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010308165710.0083bc40@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 <3.0.6.32.20010308165710.0083bc40@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain gottcheiner writes snip > >AG : there is *no* absolute random method. Jean-Pierre's idea, shuffling >one's cards before looking at them and (if the hand happens to be balanced >and within range) opening 1C if the 1st card picked up is higher than the >2nd, 1D else, resolving ties by the rank of the suit, is of a very high >level of pseudo-randomness. I would certainly allow it, especially since >(surprise !) it can be easily described and partner will not be able tu >guess anything. Neither would opponents, BTW. One would also have to be >careful to describe what we call a balanced hand. > Now we have the problem that when a player says to me "John, I think Alf is opening shorter minor more often than he should", then Alf cannot defend himself, as the evidence has been destroyed. There is a palpable difference between "seeding" from an 'event' (1st card inspected eg) and seeding from reproducible data (parity of cards held eg). -- 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 Mar 9 03:24:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28GN5o10709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:23:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28GMGt10592 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:22:18 +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 14b3B3-0009hB-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:22:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:41:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <007d01c0a7b9$52294a80$54d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <007d01c0a7b9$52294a80$54d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill writes >I sometimes wonder if screens are such a good idea. > >Without screens one could easily use pads and paper to >reproduce "Net explanations", e.g a player might write on >the pads to both his left and right : "2H?" and receive two >written explanations of 2H, which his partner and he could see >but the opponents could not see. Or just one explanation rather >than two. There are plenty of alternatives without using the Net. >Another possibility is that with screens, both of the written >explanations could be available to both opponents. I don't >know if any of these ideas are any good. Diamond screens? /\ / \ -------------- | / \ | | / \ | |/ \| / \ \ / |\ /| | \ / | | \ / | -------------- \ / \/ Now you can see both oppos but not pd. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 03:37:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28GaNX14340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:36:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28GZxt14268 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:36:01 +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 14b3OJ-000FEi-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:35:51 +0000 Message-ID: <+XVbsuBJQ7p6EwuD@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:32:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes >> > >> >I don't understand this reply. If you write the algorithme >> on your CC then >> >still nobody should know the outcome when applying it, isn't >> it? So what is >> >illegal about it? >> >> AG : if you write the algorithm, anybody will be able to use >> it. That's >> what algorithms are for. > > > >> >As usual we don't know what we are talking about, by lack of definitions. >When I use the word algorithm I think of some description how to get to a >desired result. Which not necessarily means that having available that >algoritm we also know the outcome when applying it. Take for example the >algorithm used to get deals to be played. We still succeed once in a while >to present the players with hands they didn't play yet. >So when I write on my CC the algorithm that with tails I open clubs and with >head it will be diamonds I might convince the TD this to be a fair algorithm >though he is entitled to check the coin I use for it, in my opinion. But if >I synchronize my watch with my partner's and the algorithm is that from >second 0 to 30 it will be diamonds and otherwise clubs the TD should forbid >me to use it. He probably should forbid it anyway because any clever partner >could find out what I am doing. That is what my second question was about. >May we demand from opponents to be as clever as partner is, telling them to >find out themselves. > >So, yes everybody is able to use it, but the outcome is not necesarrily the >same. That is what I tried to explain to you. Ton is getting close to the problem. 1) I toss a coin. Legal but I can't prove to the TD I didn't psyche 2) Synchronized watches. Illegal as there's a CPU 3) Parity check (undisclosed method). Legal and reproducible (but the TD may have to be told the algorithm). Now - *If* we allow random minors, I believe only method No. 3 is acceptable. Finally - do we permit random minors? - I believe No in the UK if we're going to open 1C on both 3352 and 3325. Can we use random minor with 3433 and 4333? To this I believe the answer is Yes in the UK as the choice is not a method whose primary objective is to disrupt opponents. > > >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/ -- 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 Mar 9 03:39:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28GN6i10707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:23:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28GMGt10591 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:22:18 +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 14b3B0-000MHl-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:22:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:36:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D4@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 >Do you? He could have said that a pair forgetting its systems is punishable, >if we agree that to be a violation of 74B1. Why did he say: 'ought to be', >we already have that possibility. >He did not say, and I am not sure he meant to say that, that the opponents >should be entitled to redress. Law 75B explicitly tells us not to be allowed >to. That is why I did not and still don't agree with the Dutch approach of >60/40 in case of a 'Ghestem' error. While I am not saying that I agree it should be the approach, I still believe it to be legal. If you are prepared to accept the EBU principle under L40D that no result may be obtained through the use of an illegal convention, the argument for the legality of the special Ghestem rule is that the SO lays down that it is a condition of use of Ghestem that it is not forgotten. Thus, if it is forgotten, it immediately becomes an illegal convention under L40D, and the result on the board is scrapped. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 03:41:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28Gf1v15362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:41:01 +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-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 f28Gebt15294 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:40:38 +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 14b3Sr-000Ijj-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:40:33 +0000 Message-ID: <93gb0zBfU7p6EwtD@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:36:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. 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 , Norman Scorbie writes > >John Probst wrote: >> >>... and a player says to me (the TD), "I think Alf (the player's name) >>is opening his shorter suit more often than the longer." Alf's *only* >>defence (if indeed this appears to be the case) will be to tell me the >>algorithm and show that he hasn't psyched it. This is fine, I can say >>to Alf "I am satisfied that you are using random minor openings and that >>your partner *could not* be in a position to field it. >> >>... which leads to a problem when he does decide to psyche it ... >> > > >Can I ask a question to which the answer may be blindingly obvious to >everyone else, in which case, I apologise? Why does this "Alf" chappie play >this method? Is there any bridge merit in it whatsoever, or does he just >want to do it as a fairly low-risk psyche designed to mess up the opponents >should they either have the minor he bids and doesn't have or end up >defending? Your description of him in an earlier post as 'ethical' seems to >me to be given the lie by his desire to play this absurd and dishonest >method. > Law 40A. A player may make any call or play .... The object of the game is to maximise screwing the opponents and minimise screwing partner. He is highly ethical and seeks to maximise his chances of screwing the opponents legally. The whole point is that he must prove to me that he is *not* psyching otherwise I may choose to believe he has a CPU. To suggest that he is dishonest is libellous. -- 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 Mar 9 03:54:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28GMxB10689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:22:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28GMGt10593 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:22:18 +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 14b3B0-0009hC-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:22:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:45:52 +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: <99ilt5CVp+n6EwtR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >DWS wrote: >> Oh, come on. In L25 we assume inadvertently means that the player did >> not mean to do it, and in L17D I assume but you don't that it means the >> player did not mean to do it. The distinction seems a little unclear to >> me. > >On RGB DWS wrote: >> The accepted meaning of inadvertent is "I didn't mean to do that at >> the moment I did that". That has been laid down by the WBFLC, apart >> from other considerations. > >I happen to believe it is fairly unlikely that anyone will remove a hand >from any board other than the one they intend to pick from *at that time*. >If you remove the cards from board 5 it is usually because you think, at >the time, that those are the correct cards to remove. > >Typical example - boards 4-6 arrive in the order 564 and are placed >centre table. East removes his hand. North, seeing the boards are out of >order switches to 456 (okay this is an infraction by North) and NWS remove >their hands. Now there is no way I can see that East's removal of the >cards for board 5 is anything other than "what he intended to do at the >time" - it just doesn't fit the "accepted meaning" of inadvertent given >above. I'm sure all TDs would use L17 anyway but I still think it would >be better to remove the word inadvertent So you believe that the player intended to remove his cards from the wrong board at the time he meant to do so. I don'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 Fri Mar 9 04:30:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28HUUO27575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 04:30:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f271.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.149]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28HUMt27546 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 04:30:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:30:15 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:30:14 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:30:14 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2001 17:30:15.0147 (UTC) FILETIME=[6FD59BB0:01C0A7F5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. >Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:36:47 +0000 > >In article , Norman Scorbie > writes > > > >John Probst wrote: > >> > >>... and a player says to me (the TD), "I think Alf (the player's name) > >>is opening his shorter suit more often than the longer." Alf's *only* > >>defence (if indeed this appears to be the case) will be to tell me the > >>algorithm and show that he hasn't psyched it. This is fine, I can say > >>to Alf "I am satisfied that you are using random minor openings and that > >>your partner *could not* be in a position to field it. > >> > >>... which leads to a problem when he does decide to psyche it ... > >> > > > > >Can I ask a question to which the answer may be blindingly obvious to > >everyone else, in which case, I apologise? Why does this "Alf" chappie >play > >this method? Is there any bridge merit in it whatsoever, or does he just > >want to do it as a fairly low-risk psyche designed to mess up the >opponents > >should they either have the minor he bids and doesn't have or end up > >defending? Your description of him in an earlier post as 'ethical' seems >to > >me to be given the lie by his desire to play this absurd and dishonest > >method. > > >Law 40A. A player may make any call or play .... > >The object of the game is to maximise screwing the opponents and >minimise screwing partner. He is highly ethical and seeks to maximise >his chances of screwing the opponents legally. The whole point is that >he must prove to me that he is *not* psyching otherwise I may choose to >believe he has a CPU. To suggest that he is dishonest is libellous. >-- I said the method was dishonest, not that he was. I don't believe a word of this, anyway, frankly. Are you trying to get us to believe a)that all his opponents would be warned of this at the start of every round, b)given time to discuss how to deal with it and c)he's not just trying to create an ambiguous situation where he's in control and his opponents might be at a loss? Come off it. It's not even a situation where he's worked for years on his system like Meckstroth and Rodwell to gain the upper hand, it's something he could concoct in five seconds. All this nonsense about lodging algorithms with the TD is a side issue when you're playing two and three board rounds. Every time this person opens a minor based on his so-called algorithm is it drawn to the attention of the TD? Of course not. This person can carry on doing what he likes until someone strong-willed enough and clear-thinking enough can either determine that he's at it (why should anyone have to do this, when all they've come to do is play an evening's bridge?)or that his partner knows what's going on more often than he's supposed to. What happens when he opens one diamond without spending half an hour adding together his spot cards, dividing the answer by three and opening a diamond if it comes to less than fifteen, and a club if it comes to more than fifteen(three seconds to devise that: Eat your heart out, Matey)? Do we assume it's natural? _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mar 9 04:39:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28HVjw27810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 04:31:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f121.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28HVDt27731 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 04:31:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:31:04 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:31:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:31:04 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2001 17:31:04.0771 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D69A130:01C0A7F5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: alain gottcheiner > >Illegal in the ACBL. You and your partner must play the same >system/card. > >The problem can't exist because partner will and must know the algorithm >in > >order that he play it too. > >AG : what if you decide to use each algorithms of your own creation, not >communicating which one to partner ? Or, you create in common a number of >different algorithms, and toss in secret a suitable dice before the session >(or the round) begins to know which one you will adopt ? I think this would be ruled to be "not the same system." -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 04:56:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28Hua703966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 04:56:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f12.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28HuOt03921 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 04:56:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:56:16 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:56:16 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:56:16 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2001 17:56:16.0919 (UTC) FILETIME=[12B91A70:01C0A7F9] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > I'm not convinced that either your or Herman's view is supported by the > > current Law. > >Ehm, Todd. > >Either David is right, or I am (I believe) Bifurcation is a dangerous thing, but David has clarified his position as a desired goal rather than the current state of affairs. >Or maybe neither of us is, but then there must be a third >view. > >Please tell us Todd's position then. I don't have one I'm bold enough to share yet (and that doesn't take much). I'm just not convinced by what's been said yet. I don't like: 1.) entitling a player to his opponents' misunderstanding 2.) fixed penalties for Ghestem errors 3.) the De Wael school for dealing with misinformation 4.) treating a misbid as though it were misinformation 5.) steamed kale But these are, and are nothing more than, blatent assertions. No one even plays Ghestem around here. Why tell opponents which two suits you have unless your partner agrees that he wants to buy the auction? Regardless; there are other common misbid/misexplanation scenarios. Perhaps someone might entertain immediate correction of misinformation in all cases and change the problem to one based on UI only. That is one of the primary objection to the dWs; that letting your partner know he's given MI can be handled by the other laws. I don't like it as that now gives your opponents knowledge of your misunderstanding all the time, but it might appeal to some. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 05:46:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28IjKW16834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:45:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Ij4t16768 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:45:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([213.122.23.131]) by t21mta02-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010308184148.VPGO26094.t21mta02-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 18:41:48 +0000 Message-ID: <017e01c0a7ff$cde7e640$45aa01d5@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:25:46 -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 MadDog wrote: > Ton is getting close to the problem. > > 1) I toss a coin. Legal but I can't prove to the TD I didn't psyche > 2) Synchronized watches. Illegal as there's a CPU > 3) Parity check (undisclosed method). Legal and reproducible > (but the TD may have to be told the algorithm). > > Now - *If* we allow random minors, I believe only method No. 3 is > acceptable. > ###### You have to be very careful that the algorithm that you pick is truly random. Many of the algorithms discussed so far would result in some property of partner's hand being slightly more than randomly correlated with your choice of lead and if he should discover this......... ########## -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 06:04:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28J3YC21455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:03:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28J31t21360 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:03:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.5.24]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010308190256.XDYR285.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:02:56 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c0a802$aa64af20$1805ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] OLOOT/Card prematurely led. Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:04:51 -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 N/S have had tortuous uncontested auction and have settled in 4S which will be played by South. East leads AC, and TD is called. Declarer South has 5 options, and tells the TD that the option of spreading her hand and becoming dummy is the one she intends to choose. TD insists on offering all options. Ah! but West says "I have not yet passed, does it make any difference?" So Law 24 applies. West must Pass - he was always going to anyway - and now AC is MPC and now declarer has only 3 of the 5 options.The option to become dummy is not one of them. TD rules that Law 23 does not apply. Does this sound right to you? 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 Mar 9 06:24:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28JLFa25312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:21:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28JKjt25305 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:20:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010308192040.CPNY17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]>; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:20:40 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Todd Zimnoch" CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:21:12 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010308192040.CPNY17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:31:04 -0800 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > >From: alain gottcheiner > > >Illegal in the ACBL. You and your partner must play the same > >system/card. > > >The problem can't exist because partner will and must know the algorithm > >in > > >order that he play it too. > > > >AG : what if you decide to use each algorithms of your own creation, not > >communicating which one to partner ? Or, you create in common a number of > >different algorithms, and toss in secret a suitable dice before the session > >(or the round) begins to know which one you will adopt ? > > I think this would be ruled to be "not the same system." > I think this ruling would be wrong. IMO, these players are playing the same system "random minors" they are merely using a different form of judgement (algorithm) to determine which minor to open. > -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/ > 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 Fri Mar 9 06:39:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28JclS25697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:38:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28JcNt25686 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:38:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010308193819.CUJR17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]>; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:38:19 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Norman Scorbie" CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:38:51 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010308193819.CUJR17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Norman Scorbie" > Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:30:14 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > > > > >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > >Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > >Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:36:47 +0000 > > > >Law 40A. A player may make any call or play .... > > > >The object of the game is to maximise screwing the opponents and > >minimise screwing partner. He is highly ethical and seeks to maximise > >his chances of screwing the opponents legally. The whole point is that > >he must prove to me that he is *not* psyching otherwise I may choose to > >believe he has a CPU. To suggest that he is dishonest is libellous. > >-- > I said the method was dishonest, not that he was. > > I don't believe a word of this, anyway, frankly. Are you trying to get us to > believe a)that all his opponents would be warned of this at the start of > every round, It can be disclosed easily on a CC. b)given time to discuss how to deal with it and I'm not given time discuss other "natural" or "nearly natural" methods. c)he's not just > trying to create an ambiguous situation where he's in control and his > opponents might be at a loss? Of course. Bridge is a game. I win by either doing things well or by my opponents doing things poorly. If I can encourage them to go wrong so much the better. This is what deceptive bids and styles and false cards etc are all about. Its all a normal, natural part of the game of bridge. We don't want everyone bidding and playing the same way - unless our aim is to minimize the effort involved in scoring. :-) ...snip... > What happens when he opens one diamond without spending half an hour adding > together his spot cards, dividing the answer by three and opening a diamond > if it comes to less than fifteen, and a club if it comes to more than > fifteen(three seconds to devise that: Eat your heart out, Matey)? Do we > assume it's natural? > No it will be alerted. > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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/ > 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 Fri Mar 9 06:42:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28JgFE25797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:42:15 +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 (f65.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.65]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28Jg4t25788 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:42:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:41:57 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:41:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 11:41:57 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2001 19:41:57.0493 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5FFEA50:01C0A807] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Wayne Burrows > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > I think this would be ruled to be "not the same system." > >I think this ruling would be wrong. > >IMO, these players are playing the same system "random minors" they are >merely using a different form of judgement (algorithm) to determine which >minor to open. I did early admit this could be a matter of style and judgement, but I'd hate for any, absolutely any, non-stochastic, deterministic algorithm to be considered a matter of judgement as zero judgement is involved. It's pure calculation even if a cryptographically strong random result is the output. (As if I could calculate an MD5 hash in my head.) I'd accept that the jury would still be out on stachastic methods, but I'd still side with this being a matter of system than style and judgement. There's no rule that the result cannot be biased. You can choose an algorithm that favors opening 1D over 1C. I see no problem with that. But I'd consider it a matter of system. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 06:59:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28Jx9w26146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:59:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Jwgt26137 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:58:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28D9M602840; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:09:22 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT/Card prematurely led. Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:03:11 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <000701c0a802$aa64af20$1805ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <000701c0a802$aa64af20$1805ff3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01030813092202.02820@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 08 Mar 2001, Anne Jones wrote: > N/S have had tortuous uncontested auction and have settled in 4S which > will be played by South. > East leads AC, and TD is called. Declarer South has 5 options, and tells > the TD that the option of spreading her hand and becoming dummy is the > one she intends to choose. TD insists on offering all options. > Ah! but West says "I have not yet passed, does it make any difference?" > So Law 24 applies. West must Pass - he was always going to anyway - and > now AC is MPC and now declarer has only 3 of the 5 options.The option to > become dummy is not one of them. > TD rules that Law 23 does not apply. > Does this sound right to you? Yes, it does. East could not have known that leading the AC before the end of the auction will work to his advantage, compared with letting West lead in turn. The pass did not damage N-S, since West was going to pass anyway. The TD's ruling of an OLOOT was based on incorrect facts, and is irrelevant for these purposes. L23 would apply here if West might have doubled and East could tell that the contract was likely to make. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 07:06:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28K6M826315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 07:06:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28K6Et26308 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 07:06:15 +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 MAA17232; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 12:06:05 -0800 Message-Id: <200103082006.MAA17232@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT/Card prematurely led. In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:04:51 GMT." <000701c0a802$aa64af20$1805ff3e@vnmvhhid> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 12:06:02 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > N/S have had tortuous uncontested auction and have settled in 4S which > will be played by South. > East leads AC, and TD is called. Declarer South has 5 options, and tells > the TD that the option of spreading her hand and becoming dummy is the > one she intends to choose. TD insists on offering all options. > Ah! but West says "I have not yet passed, does it make any difference?" > So Law 24 applies. West must Pass - he was always going to anyway - and > now AC is MPC and now declarer has only 3 of the 5 options.The option to > become dummy is not one of them. > TD rules that Law 23 does not apply. > Does this sound right to you? To me, East's card was prematurely led, and that makes it an opening lead; since it's out of turn, Law 54 should apply. On the other hand, Law 24 also applies, and the first paragraph says that declarer has the option to treat such cards as penalty cards (MPC's because of Law 50B). Does this statement of declarer's options supersede declarer's Law 54 options? Are the two laws actually in conflict? If so, which one takes precedence? I'm not sure of the answers to these questions. Here's a different hypothetical situation: South West North East 1NT pass 3NT dbl pass pass West makes an opening lead (trying to hit East's suit, of course). North now says "Wait a minute, I haven't passed out yet!" Trusting East's double, he now runs to 4C, passed out. North is now the declarer instead of South. But West's card is still there. West intended to lead it against 3NT, where it would have been his turn to lead. But do we want to allow N/S to force West to lead it against 4C, when East is supposed to lead? The differences between this situation and Anne's are that, in her case, (1) East intended to make an opening lead in a situation where it wasn't his turn to lead; (2) although the auction wasn't over, the non-offenders weren't getting another chance to call. Do these differences make a difference in how we apply 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 Mar 9 07:26:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28JjvQ25893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:45:57 +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 ([206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28Jj4t25878 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:45:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18892 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:00:32 -0900 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:44:20 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <017e01c0a7ff$cde7e640$45aa01d5@davicaltd> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The claim was that the choice between 1C and 1D was random, not that it was equally likely. It goes without saying that depending on partner's exact holding, he could deduce (possibly with considerable effort) the conditional probability of his partner's rule saying "open 1C with a choice." The opponents can do this too if they wish. Suppose you play Jacoby Transfers over 1NT, and also play 1NT-3M as natural and forcing. (Many do, in the area I play in.) Holding game-forcing values and a 5CM, you'll transfer if you know you want partner to play it, bid 3M if you know you want to play it, and .... shrug your shoulders and pick one if you can't tell which is better. Does that situation bother you as much as random minors? In the past there was discussion of whether this was a way to cheat and let the two halves of the partnership play different systems. Last I heard, as long as both players had both choices available, it was a matter of style and judgment, not system, which they picked. If that is allowable, shouldn't it be equally allowable to choose randomly? It is quite common, really (usually later in the auction) where two calls appear equally good on a given hand. Right now, almost everyone makes up his mind based on table feel - perhaps with UI complications. A fixed algorithm for decision-making sounds like a step forward, not a step back to me. 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 Mar 9 08:17:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28LGWk11863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:16:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta06-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28LGAt11794 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:16:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta06-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.03.02.00 201-232-124 license 9a0f3c09abb1b740b3b0b1917e20d81c) with SMTP id <20010308211717.GWWX27564.amsmta06-svc@witz> for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:17:17 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20010308221615.0108ad90@mail.chello.nl> X-Sender: a.witzen@mail.chello.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 22:16:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT/Card prematurely led. In-Reply-To: <000701c0a802$aa64af20$1805ff3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk well, technically speaking, deaclarer can still use l48B i think (and becomes dummy via l54a) SO i dont think the ruling is right regards, anton At 07:04 PM 08-03-01 -0000, you wrote: >N/S have had tortuous uncontested auction and have settled in 4S which >will be played by South. >East leads AC, and TD is called. Declarer South has 5 options, and tells >the TD that the option of spreading her hand and becoming dummy is the >one she intends to choose. TD insists on offering all options. >Ah! but West says "I have not yet passed, does it make any difference?" >So Law 24 applies. West must Pass - he was always going to anyway - and >now AC is MPC and now declarer has only 3 of the 5 options.The option to >become dummy is not one of them. >TD rules that Law 23 does not apply. >Does this sound right to you? >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/ > Anton Witzen.!!! warning: new email:a.witzen@chello.nl Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 08:30:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28LTqa15137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:29:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mirapoint.inter.net.il (mirapoint.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28LTUt15053 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:29:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-6-165.inter.net.il [213.8.6.165]) by mirapoint.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ALN59615; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:28:33 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AA7FAFB.CA7F8996@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:34:52 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nanki Poo CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@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 Quango wrote: ......SNIP -.......snoopy ! > Schrodinger's > cat does not appear, and Nanki Poo has been firmly told how to spell > Schrodinger! Mind you, someone has suggested that if Schrodinger's cat > is not on the list then that means that Schrodinger's cat is on the list > ... > Try to use the probabilities for cards distribution in order to find the probability that Schrodinger's cat will be on this list , on my list or.... on the Alpha Centaury's list or.....on Burn's lunatics list.....!!!!! I suggest the distribution of 9-3-2-1 ! Shobo - almost Ph. D. in Quantum Relativistic CATS > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 09:40:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28MbF102490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:37:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f28Mabt02412 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:36:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010308223632.EZCS17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]>; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:36:32 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Todd Zimnoch" CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:37:05 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010308223632.EZCS17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 11:41:57 -0800 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > >From: Wayne Burrows > > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > I think this would be ruled to be "not the same system." > > > >I think this ruling would be wrong. > > > >IMO, these players are playing the same system "random minors" they are > >merely using a different form of judgement (algorithm) to determine which > >minor to open. > > I did early admit this could be a matter of style and judgement, but I'd > hate for any, absolutely any, non-stochastic, deterministic algorithm to be > considered a matter of judgement as zero judgement is involved. High Card Points (whatever variation) are designed as a method of judgement. High Card Points are exactly a non-stochastic, deterministic algorithm. This is true even if you use some well known embellishments such as deduct for no spot cards, no aces, excess queens etc etc. >It's pure > calculation even if a cryptographically strong random result is the output. > (As if I could calculate an MD5 hash in my head.) > > I'd accept that the jury would still be out on stachastic methods, but I'd > still side with this being a matter of system than style and judgement. > My partner and I agree to play weak NT - notionally 12-14 or whatever. I am entitled to use my own judgement (actually algorithm) to determine which hands fall within this range. We are both playing this same weak NT system and I don't believe you can regulate against that. Also as we are allowed to use our own judgement in determining which hands fit our system you are not entitled to know what judgement (in this case algorithm) we use. Like everyone else we only need to disclose our partnership agreement (weak NT) and experience (sometimes "Wayne opens 15 counts and passes 12 counts"). > There's no rule that the result cannot be biased. You can choose an > algorithm that favors opening 1D over 1C. I see no problem with that. But > I'd consider it a matter of system. > > -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/ > 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 Fri Mar 9 10:06:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28N5uj10126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:05:56 +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 (f11.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f28N5at10063 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:05:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 15:05:29 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:05:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 15:05:28 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2001 23:05:29.0154 (UTC) FILETIME=[44B78220:01C0A824] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Wayne Burrows > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > I did early admit this could be a matter of style and judgement, but I'd > > hate for any, absolutely any, non-stochastic, deterministic algorithm to >be > > considered a matter of judgement as zero judgement is involved. > >High Card Points (whatever variation) are designed as a method of >judgement. High Card Points are exactly a non-stochastic, deterministic >algorithm. This is true even if you use some well known embellishments >such as deduct for no spot cards, no aces, excess queens etc etc. Losing trick count, total points, and quick tricks are all other evaluation techniques for opening a hand. In the ACBL, you cannot open based on HCP and your partner based on losing tricks or any other mis-matched techniques. It is considered a matter of system. Judgement comes when you open a hand that doesn't fit your system or pass a hand that does. In the case of, "When I have to chose 1C or 1D, I open 1C with an even # of odd spots otherwise 1D." no judgement is used in the execution of this system. Judgement may have been used in deciding to play it, but that's a separate issue. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 11:25:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f290IPv26902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:18:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f290Hot26817 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:17:52 +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 TAA16660 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:17:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA20342 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:17:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:17:44 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103090017.TAA20342@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > It seems to me necessary to address in some way the problem created by > the fact that, playing with real screens, there will be situations in > which East and West, through no fault of their own but through an error > (which may or may not be an irregularity) by North and South, are > operating with completely different sets of data. There is in fact a wonderful case in one of the WBF appeals books, perhaps five or so years ago, maybe more. (If someone wants to check, start with Albuquerque.) Quite likely some of the details below are wrong, but I think the essentials are correct. It was a slam where the defense needed to cash their two aces. One defender had been told what declarer actually held, while the other was told the true agreement. The second is correct procedure, of course, not an infraction, and you would normally think the first explanation, while undeniably an infraction, would be helpful to the defense. Not so in this case! Either explanation would have been OK as long as the defenders heard (saw) the _same_ one on both sides of the screen. The differing explanations messed up their signalling, and they lost an ace. I hope it's obvious that the score should have been (and was) adjusted. > Received wisdom (and, indeed, the current Laws) holds that it is not in > itself an infraction to forget your side's methods. There are > circumstances in which you can do this "without penalty", I think a lot of problems would be solved if we required much stronger evidence before ruling misbid. At the extreme, we could require a long history of _correct_ usage, not just a note on the convention card. That way psychs and _rare_ misbids would not be considered infractions, but both frequent misbids and failure to have clear agreements would be treated as MI. Reasonable people will no doubt differ in their opinions of just how far we ought to go in this direction, but I think the present "accept any statement of a misbid at face value" approach is too weak. In David B.'s case ("strong" 2H that turned out to be weak), the prior mistake in the same session (!) strongly suggests MI. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 11:34:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f290YBF01239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:34:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f290Xxt01189 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:34:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010309003356.GHFJ17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]>; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:33:56 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Todd Zimnoch" CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 0:34:29 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010309003356.GHFJ17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 15:05:28 -0800 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > >From: Wayne Burrows > > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > I did early admit this could be a matter of style and judgement, but I'd > > > hate for any, absolutely any, non-stochastic, deterministic algorithm to > >be > > > considered a matter of judgement as zero judgement is involved. > > > >High Card Points (whatever variation) are designed as a method of > >judgement. High Card Points are exactly a non-stochastic, deterministic > >algorithm. This is true even if you use some well known embellishments > >such as deduct for no spot cards, no aces, excess queens etc etc. > > Losing trick count, total points, and quick tricks are all other evaluation > techniques for opening a hand. In the ACBL, you cannot open based on HCP > and your partner based on losing tricks or any other mis-matched techniques. Well I am sorry but this is a regulation that is clearly contrary to Law 40 E1. In that Law the strongest possible term "must not" is applied to the ability of a SO's right to restrict judgement. How my partner or I evaluate our hands is the essence of judgement. > It is considered a matter of system. Judgement comes when you open a hand > that doesn't fit your system or pass a hand that does. Or when I consider a 15 point hand is only worth a 12-14 nt because I use some modification or another even if partner does not. > > In the case of, "When I have to chose 1C or 1D, I open 1C with an even # of > odd spots otherwise 1D." no judgement is used in the execution of this > system. Judgement may have been used in deciding to play it, but that's a > separate issue. > > -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/ > 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 Fri Mar 9 12:44:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f291iDa19021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:44:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f291hpt18947 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:43:52 +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 f291e0w18449 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 20:40:04 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 20:36:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >In the ACBL, you cannot open based on HCP and your partner based on >losing tricks or any other mis-matched techniques. Um, can you point me to a regulation or official ruling that says that? My understanding is that any method of hand evaluation that can be explained to opponents is legal - and I've never heard of anything that says what you say here. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOqg1Sb2UW3au93vOEQLkVwCg9AF+FVkkawk0WB8uezPX61p5LP4An3Cg YPa47i8/wYJ/P26PwitN9+pC =+UJ6 -----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 Mar 9 13:01:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2921CD23278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:01:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f99.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.99]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2920lt23207 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:00:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 18:00:39 -0800 Received: from 172.159.165.49 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 02:00:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.159.165.49] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 18:00:38 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2001 02:00:39.0050 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD1A5EA0:01C0A83C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Wayne Burrows > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > Losing trick count, total points, and quick tricks are all other >evaluation > > techniques for opening a hand. In the ACBL, you cannot open based on >HCP > > and your partner based on losing tricks or any other mis-matched >techniques. > >Well I am sorry but this is a regulation that is clearly contrary to Law 40 >E1. In that Law the strongest possible term "must not" is applied to the >ability of a SO's right to restrict judgement. > >How my partner or I evaluate our hands is the essence of judgement. Talk to the ACBL about it, they consider it to be part of the system. Further, if you open based on losing trick count, you must pre-alert that here. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 13:27:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f292R3A29961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:27:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f292Qit29894 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:26:45 +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 SAA27028; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 18:26:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200103090226.SAA27028@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 08 Mar 2001 15:05:28 PST." Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 18:26:38 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tood Zimnoch wrote: > Losing trick count, total points, and quick tricks are all other evaluation > techniques for opening a hand. In the ACBL, you cannot open based on HCP > and your partner based on losing tricks or any other mis-matched techniques. > It is considered a matter of system. Judgement comes when you open a hand > that doesn't fit your system or pass a hand that does. Hmmm . . . it appears that this would prevent me and my wife from playing together. My wife is a rank beginner who's only played bridge a few times. When she does play, she relies on high-card point count to decide whether to open. Me, I often just look at the hand and see if it "feels" like an opening hand. Much of the time I don't count points, losing tricks, or much of anything else, except that I do count my cards beforehand to make sure there are 13. So I would be barred from partnering my wife or most other novices. In fact, it looks like most pro-client partnerships are probably playing illegally. And Zia should probably be barred from playing with *anyone*. I don't know about this. I figure that if one partner would open a hand that the other partner wouldn't open even if a useful king were added to it, the two partners are playing different systems. Any variations smaller than that should probably be attributed to style and judgment. -- 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 Mar 9 13:35:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f292Yl002098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:34:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f292Yct02054 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:34:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f28JjJ303194 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:45:19 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:34:05 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01030819451902.03157@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Ed Reppert wrote: > >In the ACBL, you cannot open based on HCP and your partner based on > >losing tricks or any other mis-matched techniques. > > Um, can you point me to a regulation or official ruling that says > that? My understanding is that any method of hand evaluation that can > be explained to opponents is legal - and I've never heard of anything > that says what you say here. The ACBL regulation is that both players must play the same methods but may have different styles. It would thus probably be allowed for one player to be a Walrus and open 1NT on all 15-17 counts and the other to open 1NT on good 14 counts but not on bad 15 counts. However, if there are different basic hand evaluation systems, there could be an argument that syetems are different. If you open 1NT on 15-17 Work points, and partner opens it on 16-18.5 Stayman points, are you playing the same system? It's no longer really a matter of judgment that you will open 1NT on KQx Kx KJTxx Kxx and partner won't, while partner will open 1NT on ATx xx AQTxx KJx and you won't. (Independently, if you do open 1NT on 16-18.5 Stayman points, you cannot play conventional responses unless you also limit the range to 14-18 Work points.) -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 14:05:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2934me10167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:04:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2934Xt10110 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:04:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2934Le13296 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:04:21 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:04 +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: <3.0.6.32.20010308132111.00841b90@pop.ulb.ac.be> > AG : it does. The question is : was the infraction inadvertent ? ie, did > the player intend to commit an infraction ? No. This is not the question. Assume playing that 5C shows 0/3 aces. A player briefly thinking that 5C show 1/4, makes the bid, realises, and attempts to correct. Under L25 we do not ask "How many aces were you intending to show?". > Here, did the player intend to remove his cards from the wrong board ? > Answer : no. It is inadvertent. That's what L17 says. But the question "Did the player intend to remove the cards from board 5?" gets a resounding yes. Notice in my previous example that, at the time of removal, board 5 is not even the wrong board. 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 Mar 9 16:25:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f295Ku513028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:20:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f295KCt12938 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:20:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt92l.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.164.85]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA02415 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:10:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <015a01c0a857$a0995b80$c2abaec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010308135832.00848100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] theory of random minors. Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:13:06 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > A score years ago, a great bridge theorist called Jean-René Vernes > discovered, based on ststistical analysis of championship deals, that rules > for deciding which minor to open on a balanced hand without a good major > (good enough to be opened in your system, whatever that means) were bad : > they gave more information to the opponents than they did to partner. > > This creates several new ideas about systems : > > 1) use 1C and 1D in a somewhat artificial sense, like opening 1C on > balanced hands when you hold a 4-card major, and 1D when you don't (playing > 5-card majors) ; or opening 1C on 11-12 or 18, and 1D on 13-14 or 19-20 > (alternatively, if you play 10-12 NT, open 1C on 13-14 or 17-18 and 1D on > 15-16 or 19-20) . > I know of players using those methods, and they seem to have success with > them. [s] > given > that choosing your minor opening according to a simple rule (like longest > minor, best in case of equal number) seems to work badly, why not suppress > any rule ? > Hello Alain, This in intruiging, if only because of Vernes's credentials as a bridge theorist. Can you give us any hints as to the method that helped him reach this conclusion? For example, how did Vernes know which pairs had rules (for choosing a minor with a balanced hand that cannot open a major or no trump) and which did not? Also, which kind of information did he find to be the worst to give out---was it relative high-card placement, relative length, or what? It seems odd, that the above examples of good new ideas under 1) are all cases of rules for deciding which minor to open on a balanced hand that cannot open a major or no trump, and therefore, by Vernes's conclusion, bad. Sounds paradoxical to me. Furthermore, without choosing your longer minor on balanced hands, pre-emptive minor suit raises are severly hampered, and I thought his law endorsed them. Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 17:20:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f296JfS26917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:19:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f296JXt26873 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:19:34 +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 f296GDb15052 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:16:14 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01030819451902.03157@psa836> References: <01030819451902.03157@psa836> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:10:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >However, if there are different basic hand evaluation systems, there >could be an argument that syetems are different. "Could be." Sounds an awful lot like a straw man, to me. Sorry, David, but I just don't think this is worth worrying about. If it ever happens that the argument is presented to a TD or appeals committee, then maybe, but as far as I know, that's never happened. Doesn't seem very likely, 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/AwUBOqh17r2UW3au93vOEQJE2ACg9dyVF+PMhGid9mpKTNzz7wPro9IAn0HH cbS0JHV9X52rjqFULk3D9TxN =8jrk -----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 Mar 9 17:30:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f296TXf29192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:29:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f296TNt29149 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:29:24 +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 f296QNm08846 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:26:24 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:19:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Talk to the ACBL about it, they consider it to be part of the=20 >system. Further, if you open based on losing trick count, you must=20 >pre-alert that here. Who at ACBL has said that? And here is the entire text of the=20 regulation regarding pre-alerts. Where is the part about losing trick=20 count? >PART III: PRE-ALERTS > >Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning system of any=20 >unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare.=20 >Pre-Alerts must be given before the auction period begins on the=20 >first board of a round. > > >1. TWO-SYSTEM METHODS > >Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a=20 >combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something=20 >the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is=20 >agreeing to play a forcing club system not vulnerable and "two over=20 >one" vulnerable. > >Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall=20 >strength by vulnerability do not require a pre-Alert. These methods=20 >do require, when unexpected, an Announcement (notrump ranges not=20 >within 15 to 18 HCP) or Alert (strong jump overcalls). > >As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system=20 >during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of=20 >the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time. You may,=20 >of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents methods. > >2. SYSTEMS BASED ON VERY LIGHT OPENINGS OR OTHER HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE METHODS > >If its your partnership style to routinely open hands with fewer=20 >than 11 HCP, preempt with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx)=20 >suits, and/or overcall with fewer than 6 HCP at the one level, the=20 >opponents must be pre-Alerted. > >3. SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS > >Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems=20 >that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include=20 >either strong or weak no trumps with or without five-ard majors. The=20 >forcing opening bid will most often be either a natural, strong two=20 >bid or an artificial forcing opening of 1 or 2 . > >When you play a system structured along different agreements than=20 >these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention=20 >card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that=20 >most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canap=E9=20 >system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction=20 >begins (a 10 to 12 1NT range with distributional requirements for=20 >minor suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the=20 >opponents. I'm not trying to be stroppy about this, I just can't believe you and=20 David Grabiner have the right of it. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or=20 http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOqh4Pr2UW3au93vOEQKR+wCgw7vIgZUj+GgJCMkBxuFCxzEc9dkAoPN+ 95EOPc/KyVVAeP4usFlIEjpP =+Fno -----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 Mar 9 18:28:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f297RRs14022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:27:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f127.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.127]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f297R3t13954 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:27:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:26:56 -0800 Received: from 172.159.150.219 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 07:26:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.159.150.219] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:26:55 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2001 07:26:56.0043 (UTC) FILETIME=[51E66FB0:01C0A86A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Ed Reppert > >Talk to the ACBL about it, they consider it to be part of the=20 > >system. Further, if you open based on losing trick count, you must=20 > >pre-alert that here. > >Who at ACBL has said that? And here is the entire text of the=20 >regulation regarding pre-alerts. Where is the part about losing trick=20 >count? I've never once encountered a pair playing losing trick count that did not prealert. I believe it falls under either 2 or 3 below. Pre-alerting hand evaluation methods other than those based on work count or total points (or quick tricks for 2C/3NT openings) is de rigeur around where I live and play -- OR and WA. If this is not an ACBL-wide thing, I apologize, but this seems a rather sensible regulation. Card reading based on the auction can be frustrating when you don't know how the opponents decide to open or bid their hands. -Todd > >PART III: PRE-ALERTS > > > >Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning system of any=20 > >unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare.=20 > >Pre-Alerts must be given before the auction period begins on the=20 > >first board of a round. > > > > > >1. TWO-SYSTEM METHODS > > > >Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a=20 > >combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something=20 > >the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is=20 > >agreeing to play a forcing club system not vulnerable and "two over=20 > >one" vulnerable. > > > >Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall=20 > >strength by vulnerability do not require a pre-Alert. These methods=20 > >do require, when unexpected, an Announcement (notrump ranges not=20 > >within 15 to 18 HCP) or Alert (strong jump overcalls). > > > >As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system=20 > >during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of=20 > >the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time. You may,=20 > >of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents methods. > > > >2. SYSTEMS BASED ON VERY LIGHT OPENINGS OR OTHER HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE >METHODS > > > >If its your partnership style to routinely open hands with fewer=20 > >than 11 HCP, preempt with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx)=20 > >suits, and/or overcall with fewer than 6 HCP at the one level, the=20 > >opponents must be pre-Alerted. > > > >3. SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS > > > >Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems=20 > >that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include=20 > >either strong or weak no trumps with or without five-ard majors. The=20 > >forcing opening bid will most often be either a natural, strong two=20 > >bid or an artificial forcing opening of 1 or 2 . > > > >When you play a system structured along different agreements than=20 > >these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention=20 > >card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that=20 > >most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canap=E9=20 > >system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction=20 > >begins (a 10 to 12 1NT range with distributional requirements for=20 > >minor suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the=20 > >opponents. > >I'm not trying to be stroppy about this, I just can't believe you and=20 >David Grabiner have the right of it. > >Regards, > >Ed > >mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com >pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or=20 >http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 >pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mar 9 19:28:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f298PCa22587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 19:25:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from listonosz.comarch.pl (postfix@listonosz.comarch.pl [195.116.193.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f298Owt22577 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 19:25:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.sse.comarch [10.1.10.136]) by listonosz.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840E01768D for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:24:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3AA8924A.CCA2D691@comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 09:20:26 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [fr] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <007d01c0a7b9$52294a80$54d736cb@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 David Stevenson a écrit : > > > Diamond screens? > > /\ > / \ > -------------- > | / \ | > | / \ | > |/ \| > / \ > \ / > |\ /| > | \ / | > | \ / | > -------------- > \ / > \/ > > Now you can see both oppos but not pd. I guess we have been here before. Playing with diamond screens is tantamount to not using screens at all. You know the exact moment when your LHO & RHO made their bids/plays so you know how much time partner took to make his bid/play. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, 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 Mar 9 20:03:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29934N23407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 20:03:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2992et23396 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 20:02:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id JAA22467; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:58:42 +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 KAA15513; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:02:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010309100454.00848e40@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 Mar 2001 10:04:54 +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 03:04 9/03/01 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010308132111.00841b90@pop.ulb.ac.be> >> AG : it does. The question is : was the infraction inadvertent ? ie, did >> the player intend to commit an infraction ? > >No. This is not the question. > >Assume playing that 5C shows 0/3 aces. A player briefly thinking that 5C >show 1/4, makes the bid, realises, and attempts to correct. Under L25 we >do not ask "How many aces were you intending to show?". Sorry. L25 speaks of making a call in lieu of another. The question to ask would be : 'did you intend to bid 5C ?' (or anything). If the answer is yes, he may not correct it. If it is no, and some other conitions are met, he may. The meaning of the bid is something else. Thus, your example doesn't falsify anything. 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 Mar 9 20:52:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f299o9K02238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 20:50:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from callisto.net.voyager.co.nz (callisto.net.voyager.co.nz [203.21.30.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f299not02177 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 20:49:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (ip7.net.voyager.co.nz [203.110.16.7]) by callisto.net.voyager.co.nz (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA00543 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:49:46 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <003c01c0a87e$03fe0a60$07106ecb@oemcomputer> From: "Chris & Mary Buckland" To: "BLML" References: <000701c0a802$aa64af20$1805ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT/Card prematurely led. Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:47:10 +1300 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 Chris and Mary Buckland Ashburton, New Zealand ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, 9 March 2001 08:04 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT/Card prematurely led. > N/S have had tortuous uncontested auction and have settled in 4S which > will be played by South. > East leads AC, and TD is called. Declarer South has 5 options, and tells > the TD that the option of spreading her hand and becoming dummy is the > one she intends to choose. TD insists on offering all options. > Ah! but West says "I have not yet passed, does it make any difference?" > So Law 24 applies. Law 24 says that declarer *may* treat every such card as a penalty card. Presumably this means that declararer may choose not to treat AC as a penalty card. If so, would all the options of Law 54 now apply? Mary West must Pass - he was always going to anyway - and > now AC is MPC and now declarer has only 3 of the 5 options.The option to > become dummy is not one of them. > TD rules that Law 23 does not apply. > Does this sound right to you? > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 21:29:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29ATWH11212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:29:33 +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.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29ASut11171 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:28:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:38:04 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 07:37:32 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26DTGU11817 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 07:29:16 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26CbC115251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:37:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Cait15158 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:36:46 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA27577; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:36:25 +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 NAA02678; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:36:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010306133855.00807e70@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 Mar 2001 13:38:55 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f26Camt15174 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:53 5/03/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >I can understand it when you are trying to be lenient >towards NOs. Bad bridge is not a problem, when you are >placed in a situation that you shouldn't be in. The >sentence is "you should continue to play bridge", not "good >bridge". AG : I couldn't agree any more. Making an inferior bid is bridge. Bridge is a game of errors. No smilie here. This means that there is less difference between ACBL and RotW (1) formulations than it seems at first sight. For a bid or card not to be bridge, the degree of error should be considerable. Verging on the irrational. This is also why I didn't like to split hairs and the damage (2) in the case of the UI-then-revoke that we handled some days ago. Revoking is -alas- part of bridge ; it is not a wild or gambling action, mainly because it isn't intentional ; it is not irrational, because rationality means acting well according to the context, irrationality means acting wrongly according to the context, and a revoke it out-of-context. Something like a koân. (1) No, RotW does not mean 'rolling on the walls'. Would be pretty difficult. (2) I love zeugmata. Best 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 21:29:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29ATNw11205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:29:23 +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.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29ASut11173 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:28:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:38:03 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:42:27 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26BgQA20980 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:42:27 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26B66820756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:06:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26B5ht20650 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:05:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-234.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.234]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f26B5XS21874 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:05:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 11:53:36 +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] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@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: > > > >This is important, in the light of several other rulings. > > I think we realised that, as well. > > >A pair are in 3Sp, after a misexplanation from opponents. > >They make 10 tricks. The rest of the room is in 4Sp, making > >11. > >What is the AS ? +420 or +450 ? > >Most of us would say +420. (after seeing that nothing > >special happened in the play that would not have happened in > >the game contract). > >But David's line of reasoning seems to suggest that the AS > >is and should always be +450. > > Eh? We do not look at other scores, as TDs are trained not to, so how > would we have the faintest idea what the rest of the room is doing? Well, consider "the rest of the room are in +450" as meaning "there are always 11 tricks on the hand". Shortcut ! > And > how is this relevant anyway? Whether IWoG [RoW] WoG [EBU] egregious > [ACBL] action [1] is present is a decision taken by looking at the hand > and hearing the arguments. > > [1] Just couldn't resist the acronyms game! > put them in your list ! Anyway. The idea "you must continue to play bridge" is just another way towards saying - don't try for double shots, please. I never did understand why the EBU wanted to remove the I from IWoG. Now when it seems that revokes are among what is intended, I am not certain as to whether it is a good thing that they did. After all, this is a huge step in a sideways direction. I can understand it when you are trying to be lenient towards NOs. Bad bridge is not a problem, when you are placed in a situation that you shouldn't be in. The sentence is "you should continue to play bridge", not "good bridge". But bidding 7NT after an infraction is not Wild, or even Gambling, it's plain Irrational. I always thought the three words went together, not that they were three separate classes of action, easily classified. After all, the answer to the question "would you consider 7NT wild, gambling or irrational ?" is "YES". > -- > 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/ -- 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 Mar 9 21:29:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29ATNP11206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:29:23 +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.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29ASut11172 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:28:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:38:04 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:45:37 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26FjZA26177 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:45:35 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26EcJj13611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:38:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26Ec9t13565 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:38:11 +1100 (EST) Received: by XION with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:35:26 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:35:22 +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 David Stevenson wrote: >Martin Sinot writes >>alain gottcheiner wrote: >> >>>Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically gets a bottom >>>and the interdiction to play the convention for the remaining of the >>>event. >> >>This was done a few years ago, but after some heavy protests, this >>practice was discontinued. Although we very much want to punish all >>Ghestem errors, the Laws don't allow us to. We can punish misinformation >>and we can punish the use of unauthorised info, but if the offenders do >>neither, then we can only weep with the opponents. So the Dutch aren't >>"right" anymore. > > We discussed this in the EBU, and I was in a minority of one in >supporting special anti-Ghestem rules. > > But make no mistake: they are legal. Under L40D the SO has wide >powers to regulate conventions, and a regulation based on L40D such as >any error in Ghestem leads to a full board penalty or a ban from playing >it within three months of getting it wrong are perfectly legal. Of course they are legal. But no such (written) rules existed at the time they were punishing every Ghestem error. -- 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 Fri Mar 9 21:30:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29ATPQ11208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:29:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29ASut11174 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:28:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:38:03 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:31:44 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26BVgA15430 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:31:43 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26AsBo18557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:54:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Arxt18542 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:54:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14aF6I-000LYy-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:53:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:15:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@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 >In short, I would not rule at all until I knew what North-South's >agreement was as to the pass of 3C doubled. As to how the Director >ruled, I neither know nor care. If he knew his business, he would have >enquired the meaning of South's pass, and the information would have >been supplied to us. Since it has not been, then either: he did not ask, >in which case he is a jackass and his ruling is of no interest to me; or >he did ask, and the information has been withheld from us in order to >create a more interesting problem, in which case the problem-setter is >a... well, he is someone whom I am very glad to see back on BLML, and to >whom despite previous differences I send my very best wishes for a >speedy and complete recovery. Yes, I can see that the question should have been asked. In fact it was not, but from everything else that was told to the Director I am confident that the correct answer would have been "no agreement". -- 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 Fri Mar 9 21:30:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29ATYY11214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:29:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29AT1t11184 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:29:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:38:03 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:36:43 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f25H0VU19029 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:00:32 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25FRlY25019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:27:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f25FRMt24945 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:27:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA27677; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:23:15 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id QAA24773; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:26:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010305162923.0088a940@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 Mar 2001 16:29:23 +0100 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! 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 00:56 5/03/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > B32 -- W N E S > E/W KJT94 > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P > T98 3S P 4S X >AKJT43 Q2 AP >A83 ++ Q7652 >5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C >Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty > 98765 oriented: description later > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" > TMS A973 4Sx-1 > KJ42 > > North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as H + D. She >said everyone does so where she plays. South agreed he had probably got >it wrong. The description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". > > East-West said that: > >1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double of 3C >showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements of a double of >3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to the doubt over the meaning >of the double. >2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. >3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if he had known >that it was not one of North's suits. > > So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? AG : man bites dog. I'm along the less severe. North had the information that partner had misunderstood. If he hadn't, and if West had passed, he would have taken South's pass at its face value - I don't have any preference between H and D. That the pass is to play would be a strange agreement indeed. He would probably have taken out to 3D. So, please tell me, why should the final contract be 5C ?? If you think 3C means both 'no prefenrence' and 'club tolerance', then the final contract will be 3CX. Thus, I could understand 3CX -2 (or perhaps -3), but 5C, why, why ? when you are doubled in 3C, do you play 5C ? Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically gets a bottom and the interdiction to play the convention for the remaining of the event. It was seriously considered by Belgian authorities that Ghestem would be 'yellow', the highest degree of artificiality. It seems that Ghestem is, by far, the convention that creates the most MI and systemic errors. 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 22:23:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29BN0W18546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:23:00 +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 (f42.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29BMqt18500 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:22:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:22:43 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 11:22:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 11:22:43 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2001 11:22:43.0371 (UTC) FILETIME=[425D5FB0:01C0A88B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >...snip... Me: > > What happens when he opens one diamond without spending half an hour >adding > > together his spot cards, dividing the answer by three and opening a >diamond > > if it comes to less than fifteen, and a club if it comes to more than > > fifteen(three seconds to devise that: Eat your heart out, Matey)? Do we > > assume it's natural? > > Wayne: >No it will be alerted. > Alert. "What's that?" "He bid quickly so it's a genuine suit." Are you sure? What's the time limit? Less than five seconds? Six-eight seconds if partner noticed he half-sorted his hand rather than just picking it up and noticing a lot of diamonds and bidding one diamond immediately? _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mar 9 22:53:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29BqqU26399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:52:52 +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-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 f29Bqbt26375 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:52:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-149.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.149]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f29BqXi17548 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:52:33 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA8A3AD.703AB37D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:34:37 +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] Ghestem again! References: <200103072242.RAA10140@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00a101c0a764$eca3cd60$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> <3AA774C8.F9129BFA@village.uunet.be> <000901c0a7e1$e0f35ee0$2047073e@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: > > Herman wrote: > > > > Really David, screens are an added bonus to the opponents of > > misbidders. > > I know they are, in the majority of cases. But some of the time, they > are not, because the opponents of the misbidders know less about what is > going on than they would know if the screens were not there. What is > more, each opponent "knows" something different, and does not "know" > something that his partner does "know". (I use quotation marks because, > of course, some of the data that is handed out is false; one cannot know > a falsehood.) That is what strikes me as illogical. > It seems illogical, but then so does bidding clubs when you have hearts and diamonds. Look at it this way. Whenever a bid is misexplained, you will be in trouble. The TD is there to redress that balance. If you are damaged, your redress becomes the best score you could be getting. You are almost always better off with a redress. Without screens, there are some cases which solve themselves and do not give damage. With screens, there are more cases that turn sour and need redress, for the exact reasons that you have given, namely that opponents don't understand their own partner's bidding any more. So as non-offender, you are better off wirth screens. What then is illogical in the fact that there are more boards that would lead to TD rulings ? Mind you, those are MI cases, there are far less UI cases, which is the reason for screens in the first 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/ -- 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 Mar 9 22:53:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29Bqt326403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:52:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29Bqat26373 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:52:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-149.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.149]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f29BqUi17538 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:52:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA8A1B7.185C2DC@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:26:15 +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] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010305084150.00b6cb80@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010307083422.00ab9ee0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010308083731.00b6b830@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 05:55 AM 3/8/01, Herman wrote: > > >So a declarer who revokes in one contract does not suffer, > >while one who is in a different contract does ? > >Hardly seems fair to me ! > > It's not a matter of what contract they're in; it's a matter of what > contract they would have been in absent the irregularity. Well, the contract they should be in is a constant. It's something directed by the cards and the systems and judgment of the players. The contract they are actually in is not constant. It depends on the particularity of the infraction, and it is exactly this infraction that we are trying to get rid of. So when the contract should be 4Sp, but it is 3Sp, everything in the play matters. But when the contract is 2Di by opponents, nothing more matters. That is what I mean with not fair. When they are in the same strain, they must play bridge, but when they are not, they are suddenly allowed to revoke. > L12C2 > directs us to determine "the most favorable result that was likely had > the irregularity not occurred". If it's not "likely" that there would > have been no revoke absent the irregularity, then the revoke was not a > consequence of the irregularity, and it stands. We shall never be in a position where it turns out to be likely that someone would revoke. It is no more or less likely that someone would have revoked in 4Sp, given that they revoked in 3Sp, 2Di or not at all. > If, OTOH, it occurred > in a position that could only have occurred given the irregularity, we > should not assume that some other revoke in some completely different > position was any more likely than it would have been had there not been > a revoke in the contract that resulted from the irregularity, and we > adjust the score on that basis. > A revoke has nothing whatsoever to do with the strain we are in. Apart from becoming dummy, a player is always exactly as likely to revoke as at any other time. > >I agree with the "suboptimal play" case, mainly because we > >would adjust in L12C3 to an average - so there is no escape > >to a supraoptimal play. > >But the revoke ? Either we make player suffer for his > >revoke in all cases, or in neither, but not according to the > >strain of the table contract, that is not fair. > > We make the player suffer for a revoke that they would (at some > sufficiently high level of probability, i.e. that level at which their > not revoking is not considered "likely") have committed had there been > no infraction, and not make them suffer for a revoke that they would > not (ditto) have committed had there been no infraction. Sounds fair > to me. > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -- 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 Mar 9 22:53:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29Bqsd26401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:52:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29Bqdt26379 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:52:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-149.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.149]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f29BqZi17568 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:52:35 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA8A690.C780FAD5@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:46:56 +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] random minors. References: <3.0.6.32.20010308133217.007bdc70@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010308165710.0083bc40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > AG : there is *no* absolute random method. Jean-Pierre's idea, shuffling > one's cards before looking at them and (if the hand happens to be balanced > and within range) opening 1C if the 1st card picked up is higher than the > 2nd, 1D else, resolving ties by the rank of the suit, is of a very high > level of pseudo-randomness. I would certainly allow it, especially since > (surprise !) it can be easily described and partner will not be able tu > guess anything. Neither would opponents, BTW. One would also have to be > careful to describe what we call a balanced hand. > The problem with that is that it cannot be duplicated. If you have to prove to the TD that there is no single way that partner can know anything, you need to show TD that the algorithm yields diamonds or clubs, in the specific case. That can only be done using all 13 cards as input. Such a method might be called cryptic, but I fail to see why this should be disallowed if the decryption cannot be done by partner. So I vote for a : odd number of 2-3-4's in hand : clubs, even : diamonds. near enough to 50% for you ? Why would it need to be 50% BTW ? You could calculate the relative frequencies of the odd/even results and then write on your CC : with 33(43) 12-14, we open 1Di 48%, 1Cl 52% of the time, random. And you could prove that this is true as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 9 23:45:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29Cfnu28390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:41:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29Cfat28385 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:41:37 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA24345; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:41:15 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA08211; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:41:11 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010309134350.00841100@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 Mar 2001 13:43:50 +0100 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: References: <017e01c0a7ff$cde7e640$45aa01d5@davicaltd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:44 8/03/01 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: > >Suppose you play Jacoby Transfers over 1NT, and also play 1NT-3M as >natural and forcing. (Many do, in the area I play in.) Holding >game-forcing values and a 5CM, you'll transfer if you know you want >partner to play it, bid 3M if you know you want to play it, and .... shrug >your shoulders and pick one if you can't tell which is better. Does that >situation bother you as much as random minors? AG : well, this opens up a new argument ! Look , I'm a bit of a hog, and Aex isn't. Which means my 'algorithm' to decide between 2D and 3H will not be his. However, we're still playing the same system. You see, using different algorithms is not per se disallowed. 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 Mar 10 00:03:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29D3LE29235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:03:21 +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 f29D3Bt29222 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:03:12 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA14177; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:03:06 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Mar 09 14:06:38 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 <01K0ZUHKZRCA0047MW@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:02:02 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:56:59 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:42:37 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D8@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 > determining > the distinction between them. I argue that the correct > distinction is > the one stated in L12C2; damage which was not "likely had the > irregularity not occurred" is consequent damage; damage that was > "likely had the irregularity not occurred" is merely subsequent. > This seems wrong to me, but does not explain our different vue. Subsequent damage is never likely to occur. The description that damage not caused by (not being a result of) the previous infraction is not considered to be consequent damage, as we say it for a long time already, seems adequate to me. Let me try to say it in another way, rephrasing your description. Damage that is hardly predictable at the moment of the irregularity tends to be subsequent. > If someone illegally puts me in a position in which I make an error > (even an "egregious" error) that I could not have made had he > not acted > illegally, my error was a consequence of the illegality. With the right interpretation we might agree here. The revoke for example is subsequent now. Let us take an auction up to 4S, after which opponents using a hesitation bid 5H. Now partner decides to bid 5S. Normally spoken damage now is consequent: we would not have been in that position without the infraction. But we need the possibility to declare 5S as a crazy bid. And your description allows us to do so. It is possible that 5H has been made as a normal bid in which case the damage by bidding 5S is 100% subsequent. Do you allow me to rephrase your statement as follows ?: If someone illegally puts me in a position in which I made an error I never should have made, regardless the matter of (il)legality, my error was a subsequent one. My impression is that real life is tougher than we want the laws to be applied by introducing 'egregious'. Good players in appeal committees don't like to give good players-nonoffenders good scores after an irregularity and less well judged decisions. They are tough among themselves, is my experience. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 00:23:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29DMoU29938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:22:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29DMSt29919 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:22:29 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA04073; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:22:25 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Mar 09 14:26:28 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 <01K0ZV5NX9C400479R@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:21:27 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:16:24 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:01:55 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem again! To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D9@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 > > Kooijman, A. writes > > >Do you? He could have said that a pair forgetting its > systems is punishable, > >if we agree that to be a violation of 74B1. Why did he say: > 'ought to be', > >we already have that possibility. > >He did not say, and I am not sure he meant to say that, that > the opponents > >should be entitled to redress. Law 75B explicitly tells us > not to be allowed > >to. That is why I did not and still don't agree with the > Dutch approach of > >60/40 in case of a 'Ghestem' error. > > While I am not saying that I agree it should be the > approach, I still > believe it to be legal. If you are prepared to accept the > EBU principle > under L40D that no result may be obtained through the use of > an illegal > convention, the argument for the legality of the special > Ghestem rule is > that the SO lays down that it is a condition of use of Ghestem that it > is not forgotten. Thus, if it is forgotten, it immediately becomes an > illegal convention under L40D, and the result on the board is > scrapped. > > -- > David Stevenson It sounds clever and futile, but what about 75B? In my opinion this is not the spirit of the laws. We have the same with forbidden psyches in strong conventional opening bids. Justified with the same argument: you only may use it when you don't psyche it. I have never accepted that to be within the scope and the meaning of the laws, even when Grattan tells me it is. While trying to avoid openingbids of 1NT with 8-10 by forbidding the use of conventions there after,though not sportive,is legal conform L40D. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 00:58:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29Dvvi01456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:57:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29Dvit01446 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:57:45 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA25832; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:57:41 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Mar 09 15:01:21 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 <01K0ZWEYSHW00047CR@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:57:12 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:52:08 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:29:28 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem again! To: "'Martin Sinot'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7DB@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 was done a few years ago, but after some heavy protests, this > >>practice was discontinued. Although we very much want to punish all > >>Ghestem errors, the Laws don't allow us to. We can punish > misinformation > >>and we can punish the use of unauthorised info, but if the > offenders do > >>neither, then we can only weep with the opponents. So the > Dutch aren't > >>"right" anymore. We never were. (in my opinion, and with respect to this issue) ton > > > > We discussed this in the EBU, and I was in a minority of one in > >supporting special anti-Ghestem rules. > > > > But make no mistake: they are legal. Under L40D the SO has wide > >powers to regulate conventions, and a regulation based on > L40D such as > >any error in Ghestem leads to a full board penalty or a ban > from playing > >it within three months of getting it wrong are perfectly legal. > > Of course they are legal. (only) once more. I don't think they are legal. We need a crinky (you understand me) interpretation to get to that conclusion. My main objection has to do with redress for the non offenders, that was my subject! Penalties are not of much interest, yes we may try to discourage the play of conventions. ton But no such (written) rules existed at the > time they were punishing every Ghestem error. > > -- > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 01:17:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29EGtU02242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:16:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29EGdt02227 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:16:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14bNh2-000Muy-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:16:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:54:56 +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: <3.0.6.32.20010308132111.00841b90@pop.ulb.ac.be> >> AG : it does. The question is : was the infraction inadvertent ? ie, did >> the player intend to commit an infraction ? > >No. This is not the question. > >Assume playing that 5C shows 0/3 aces. A player briefly thinking that 5C >show 1/4, makes the bid, realises, and attempts to correct. Under L25 we >do not ask "How many aces were you intending to show?". No, we ask what he meant to do at the moment he did it. >> Here, did the player intend to remove his cards from the wrong board ? >> Answer : no. It is inadvertent. That's what L17 says. > >But the question "Did the player intend to remove the cards from board 5?" >gets a resounding yes. Notice in my previous example that, at the time of >removal, board 5 is not even the wrong board. So we ask whether he meant to remove the cards from the wrong board at the moment he did it. Look, Tim, I know exactly what you are trying to do. You are deliberately showing contempt for the Laws by trying to find little loopholes that make difficulties for inexperienced Directors and provide ammunition for Bridge Lawyers. You know exactly what the Law means and that it applies in these cases. Perhaps the wording is not quite best so an alternative way of looking at it is that you are deliberately trying to denigrate the law-makers, who have a pretty difficult and thankless task without your efforts. There is no ambiguity in the Law despite your attempts to find one. I suppose someone now wants to know why I am arguing with you when you know you are wrong and I know you are wrong. Simple: I worry about the other readers of BLML, the lurkers, the people with less confidence in themselves in giving rulings, who read some of the rubbish put on BLML by people who prefer semantic arguments and have no interest in furthering the game of bridge. And for them I try to debunk the awful arguments. However much you argue, I do not expect Herman or Grattan or David B or Steve W or Ton to start making silly rulings. But if one person does because of your fatuous arguments then you have done the game a disservice. If you wish to argue the wording can be improved for the next Law- book, feel free. I don't agree - there are lots of Laws that do not say what we want without worrying about the ones that do - and this Law has enough other flaws anyway. But at least you won't do any harm. But do not pretend that you believe it says something it does not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 01:55:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29EhjK03389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:43:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29EhCt03369 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:43:13 +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 f29Eh5q69400 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:43:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010309090349.00b6ab30@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 Mar 2001 09:42:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3AA8A1B7.185C2DC@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010305084150.00b6cb80@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010307083422.00ab9ee0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010308083731.00b6b830@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 04:26 AM 3/9/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > At 05:55 AM 3/8/01, Herman wrote: > > > > >So a declarer who revokes in one contract does not suffer, > > >while one who is in a different contract does ? > > >Hardly seems fair to me ! > > > > It's not a matter of what contract they're in; it's a matter of what > > contract they would have been in absent the irregularity. > >Well, the contract they should be in is a constant. It's >something directed by the cards and the systems and judgment >of the players. >The contract they are actually in is not constant. It >depends on the particularity of the infraction, and it is >exactly this infraction that we are trying to get rid of. >So when the contract should be 4Sp, but it is 3Sp, >everything in the play matters. But when the contract is >2Di by opponents, nothing more matters. That is what I mean >with not fair. >When they are in the same strain, they must play bridge, but >when they are not, they are suddenly allowed to revoke. > > > L12C2 > > directs us to determine "the most favorable result that was likely had > > the irregularity not occurred". If it's not "likely" that there would > > have been no revoke absent the irregularity, then the revoke was not a > > consequence of the irregularity, and it stands. > >We shall never be in a position where it turns out to be >likely that someone would revoke. >It is no more or less likely that someone would have revoked >in 4Sp, given that they revoked in 3Sp, 2Di or not at all. > > > If, OTOH, it occurred > > in a position that could only have occurred given the irregularity, we > > should not assume that some other revoke in some completely different > > position was any more likely than it would have been had there not been > > a revoke in the contract that resulted from the irregularity, and we > > adjust the score on that basis. > > > >A revoke has nothing whatsoever to do with the strain we are >in. >Apart from becoming dummy, a player is always exactly as >likely to revoke as at any other time. > > > >I agree with the "suboptimal play" case, mainly because we > > >would adjust in L12C3 to an average - so there is no escape > > >to a supraoptimal play. > > >But the revoke ? Either we make player suffer for his > > >revoke in all cases, or in neither, but not according to the > > >strain of the table contract, that is not fair. > > > > We make the player suffer for a revoke that they would (at some > > sufficiently high level of probability, i.e. that level at which their > > not revoking is not considered "likely") have committed had there been > > no infraction, and not make them suffer for a revoke that they would > > not (ditto) have committed had there been no infraction. Sounds fair > > to me. The statement that "a player is always exactly as likely to revoke as at any other time" may be consistent with the position that a revoke is an "irrational" act, but is clearly not true. In the limiting case, a player who is out of the suit led will never revoke. In non-limiting cases it's a matter of degree -- with a heart led, a player with four hearts and one diamond is less likely to revoke than a player with one heart and four diamonds. It depends on how the play has gone, which determines what the player holds in his hand at the time he revokes. A revoke is never "likely" *a priori*. But once a player has revoked from a given hand, it seems quite reasonable to assume that it is likely that he would have revoked from the same remaining holding, after playing his played cards in the same order, thus in exactly same position, against a contract in the same suit at a different level at which the play would go the same way. That's a long way from assuming that a player who would revoke at some particular point in the defense of 3S would be likely to revoke at some point in the hand, for the same number of penalty tricks, as declarer at 2D. Moreover, what about the dummy, which Herman dismisses in passing? If we adjust from 3S by the offenders to 2D by the NOs, shouldn't Herman's view lead to a different adjustment depending on whether the player who revoked against 3S would have been declarer or dummy in 2D? Surely, even if we accept the notion that "a player is exactly as likely to revoke as at any other time" (which, obviously, I don't) we cannot presume that a player is exactly as likely to revoke as some other player! I don't buy the idea that revoking is "failing to play bridge". Revokes are part of the game. To argue otherwise is to suggest that a player who revokes is always in violation of L74B1 (but presumably escapes a PP (or DP) for playing insufficient attention to the game only because the punishment inflicted by the revoke laws is sufficient to the infraction). Nor can I conceive of a position where a revoke could be a means to a "double shot". A priori probabilities are just that. They do not apply to actual events. The chance of rain yesterday may have been 50% two days ago, but today it's either 100% or zero; it either rained yesterday or it didn't. There is no inherent contradiction between the beliefs that the revoker was negligibly likely to revoke against 3S a priori and that, having revoked with a given hand, on a given line of play, in a given position, would be "likely" to have done so had the hand, line and position been the same but the contract at a different level. Nor any contradiction between that belief and that the player who revoked on defense against 3S would be negligibly more likely to revoke as declarer at 2D than the a priori probability of his doing so. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 03:28:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29GRV208486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:27:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29GRJt08431 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:27:20 +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 f29GRDI70853 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:27:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010309105013.00b6dd00@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 Mar 2001 11:27:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D8@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:42 AM 3/9/01, Kooijman wrote: > > determining > > the distinction between them. I argue that the correct > > distinction is > > the one stated in L12C2; damage which was not "likely had the > > irregularity not occurred" is consequent damage; > >damage that was > > "likely had the irregularity not occurred" is merely subsequent. > >This seems wrong to me, but does not explain our different vue. Subsequent >damage >is never likely to occur. >The description that damage not caused by (not being a result of) the >previous infraction is not considered to be consequent damage, as we >say it >for a long time already, seems adequate to me. Let me try to say it in >another way, rephrasing your description. Damage that is hardly >predictable >at the moment of the irregularity tends to be subsequent. We may be having trouble with our English. All consequent damage is subsequent by definition. On BLML we tend to use "subsequent" as shorthand for "subsequent but not consequent", but we should take care not to confuse ourselves by doing so. > > If someone illegally puts me in a position in which I make an error > > (even an "egregious" error) that I could not have made had he > > not acted > > illegally, my error was a consequence of the illegality. > >With the right interpretation we might agree here. The revoke for >example is >subsequent now. >Let us take an auction up to 4S, after which opponents using a hesitation >bid 5H. Now partner decides to bid 5S. Normally spoken damage now is >consequent: we would not have been in that position without the >infraction. >But we need the possibility to declare 5S as a crazy bid. And your >description allows us to do so. It is possible that 5H has been made as a >normal bid in which case the damage by bidding 5S is 100% subsequent. It doesn't follow, because L12C2 tells us that to consider the damage, for adjudication, as "100% subsequent", which I take to mean "0% consequent", to the infraction, 5H must be more than merely "normal". Alternative possible actions (leading to a better result for the NOs) must not be "likely", which is a stronger condition. >Do you allow me to rephrase your statement as follows ?: > >If someone illegally puts me in a position in which I made an error I >never >should have made, regardless the matter of (il)legality, my error was a >subsequent one. A is "consequent to" B if A would not have occurred without B having occurred. Therefore if someone illegally puts me in a position in which I make an error I never *could* have made had he not acted illegally, my error is consequent to his acting illegally, by definition. If he puts me in a position in which I make an error (which by definition I shouldn't have made, else it wouldn't be an error), but could have made anyhow had he not put me in such a position, it is not consequent by definition, although it still may be due to other factors (as when I have risked my third trick on defense to gain an unlikely fourth trick against 4S, but would not have done so against 3S or 5S). >My impression is that real life is tougher than we want the laws to be >applied by introducing 'egregious'. Good players in appeal committees >don't >like to give good players-nonoffenders good scores after an >irregularity and >less well judged decisions. They are tough among themselves, is my >experience. They may not like to give non-offenders good scores after an irregularity, but that's no excuse for failing to follow L12C2 when adjudicating appeals. As others have pointed out, it's very difficult to produce an argument that leads to the conclusion that a pair is not entitled to a good, even unusually good, score as the result of an opponent's infraction but doesn't lead equally to the conclusion that a pair is not entitled to a good, even unusually good, score as a result of an opponent's bad play. 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 Mar 10 04:10:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29H9xD11722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:09:59 +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 f29H9pt11718 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:09:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive49g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.48]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA00982; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:09:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001b01c0a8bc$bd98ce40$3011f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:16:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd you will have to back this up in some way. I certainly know of no such acbl regulations as you have imputed. Can you please cite where these regs are...on the web site of acbl perhaps, or in duplicate decisions...or in acbl score tact notes? Where areyou getting this information? Kent or Chyah (or Gary), if you are reading this can you tell us if there is really such a regulation? Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. > >From: Wayne Burrows > > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > Losing trick count, total points, and quick tricks are all other > >evaluation > > > techniques for opening a hand. In the ACBL, you cannot open based on > >HCP > > > and your partner based on losing tricks or any other mis-matched > >techniques. > > > >Well I am sorry but this is a regulation that is clearly contrary to Law 40 > >E1. In that Law the strongest possible term "must not" is applied to the > >ability of a SO's right to restrict judgement. > > > >How my partner or I evaluate our hands is the essence of judgement. > > Talk to the ACBL about it, they consider it to be part of the system. > Further, if you open based on losing trick count, you must pre-alert that > here. > > -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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 04:17:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29HHGm11775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:17:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin10.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29HHAt11771 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:17:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.58]) by mailin10.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G9XXKH00.966 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:21:53 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-204.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.204]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-All-Encompassing-MailRouter V2.9c 1/1972486); 10 Mar 2001 03:16:48 Message-ID: <003901c0a8bc$c25d8240$ccd336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:17:02 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> B32 -- W N E S >> E/W KJT94 >> D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P >> T98 3S P 4S X >>AKJT43 Q2 AP >>A83 ++ Q7652 >>5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C >>Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty >> 98765 oriented: description later >> K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" >> TMS A973 4Sx-1 >> KJ42 >> >> North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as >> H + D. She said everyone does so where she plays. >> South agreed he had probably got it wrong. The description >> on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". >> >> East-West said that: >> >>1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double >> of 3C showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements >> of a double of 3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to >> the doubt over the meaning of the double. >>2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. >>3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if >> he had known that it was not one of North's suits. >> >> So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? > >AG : man bites dog. I'm along the less severe. > >North had the information that partner had misunderstood. >If he hadn't, and if West had passed, he would have taken >South's pass at its face value - I don't have any preference >between H and D. That the pass is to play would be a strange >agreement indeed. Why? Just because you personally don't play it that way? On a gain/loss balance sheet, the "natural" meaning of the Pass is probably more useful than your proposal, because a Ghestem bidder is so often exactly 5-5 that it's usually easy to give preference to 3D or 3H, whereas there's only one way to reach 3C if that is the best contract. >He would probably have taken out to 3D. So, please tell me, >why should the final contract be 5C ?? David didn't suggested 5C as a contract - it was I who suggested that. Since you ask, here's why... South passes 3C doubled. This may suggest to North that South holds long clubs. See Comment #3 by EW in DWS's summary above. This comment clearly implies that with the correct info, both Pass AND 3S by West are now possible calls. thus we have to track the developments after both Pass and 3S by West. If West passes, 3CX becomes the final contract. If West bids 3S, North may bid 5C or may bid 4C or may Pass depending on how convinced she is that South has long clubs for the Pass of 3CX. 5C is a real possibility so, in the absence of L12C3 for the Director, my ruling as a Director is based on 5CX (the most unfavourable result that was at all probable). So that's where 5C came from. Does it make any sense to you? >If you think 3C means both 'no preference' and 'club tolerance', >then the final contract will be 3CX. Thus, I could understand >3CX -2 (or perhaps -3), but 5C, why, why ? when you are >doubled in 3C, do you play 5C ? because you are not doubled in 3C, your opponents are in 3S which is a possibility which they specifically referred to in their written submission above - so we cannot really disregard it. >Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically >gets a bottom and the interdiction to play the convention for >the remaining of the event. >It was seriously considered by Belgian authorities that >Ghestem would be 'yellow', the highest degree of artificiality. >It seems that Ghestem is, by far, the convention that creates >the most MI and systemic errors. I had never heard of this anti-Ghestem stuff when I gave my rather esoteric ruling of 5C doubled down lots. I did state in my previous post that I expected an appeal against such a ruling. Part of the point of my ruling is that I live in a region where ACs but not Tds can use L12C3. My ruling placed the onus to appeal on the Offending side. Perhaps the ruling (minus 1400) was a bit extreme. A sidetrack follows: Ghestem is virtually unknown in Australia. In the last five years I have only come across Ghestem once. That was in the recent Quarter-Finals of our National Open Teams, when a lowly ranked Aussie team playing Ghestem upset our team. I felt a bit better when they beat Balicki-Zmudzinski in their Semi-Final, although they did lose to the Italian World Champions in the Grand Final. Not a bad effort - the only Aussies who bother to play Ghestem are the team who prevent a downunder replay of the Maastricht Olympiad Grand Final. Peter Gill Sydney, Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 04:39:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29HdCm11911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:39:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29Hd5t11907 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:39:06 +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 MAA12139 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:25:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA27779 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:25:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:25:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103091725.MAA27779@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 > Tim West-meads writes > >Assume playing that 5C shows 0/3 aces. A player briefly thinking that 5C > >show 1/4, makes the bid, realises, and attempts to correct. Under L25 we > >do not ask "How many aces were you intending to show?". > From: David Stevenson > No, we ask what he meant to do at the moment he did it. Calm down a moment, David. Tim is making a reasonable point, even if it doesn't affect the way we would rule in practical cases. If you ask what the player above meant to do, you might get two answers. The player: a) meant to show one ace, and b) also meant to bid 5C. These are contradictory in the players' methods, of course, but he was confused at the moment he made the bid. Nevertheless, both a) and b) are true answers. The common interpretation is that answer b) is the one we use for rulings under L25A (and also L45C4b). > So we ask whether he meant to remove the cards from the wrong board at > the moment he did it. Here again there are two answers. The player: a) meant to remove his cards from the board to be played, and b) meant to remove his cards from board 5 (even though board 4 was about to be played). Actually, there's also answer c) in the case Tim has posed: the player meant to remove his cards from the board that was then on top of the stack. For purposes of L17, it is answer a) we use. That means in effect we ignore the 'inadvertently' in L17D. I don't see why the word is there at all. Wouldn't we make the same ruling even if we knew for sure the player had picked up the wrong hand deliberately? (Of course we would add a PP or DP and look for C&E action, but wouldn't the score adjustment be the same?) Perhaps I'm missing something, but it does seem to me that in 2007, 'inadvertently' needs to be deleted from L17D. (Grattan?) Of course in a practical ruling, we should investigate what happened. The player holding the "wrong" cards may in fact not be the one at fault, as in Tim's example. > There is no ambiguity in the Law despite your attempts to find one. On the contrary: if the normal interpretations are accepted, 'inadvertent' is used with different meanings in different Laws. I don't think that's a serious problem, but it is quite reasonable to point it out on BLML. It should be easy enough to fix in the next Laws version, so why not? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 04:40:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29HOPu11838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:24:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29HNWt11831 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:23:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.58]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G9XXTP00.76Z for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:27:25 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-204.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.204]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Kaleidoscopic-MailRouter V2.9c 1/1973527); 10 Mar 2001 03:22:20 Message-ID: <004801c0a8bd$87f8f8e0$ccd336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:22:34 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: >It seems illogical, but then so does bidding clubs when >you have hearts and diamonds. Not really. Virtually every bridge player does that, by using Stayman. It can hardly be illogical to do something that almost all bridge players do. >Look at it this way. > >Whenever a bid is misexplained, you will be in trouble. The >TD is there to redress that balance. If you are damaged, >your redress becomes the best score you could be getting. >You are almost always better off with a redress. > >Without screens, there are some cases which solve themselves >and do not give damage. >With screens, there are more cases that turn sour and need >redress, for the exact reasons that you have given, namely >that opponents don't understand their own partner's bidding >any more. >So as non-offender, you are better off wirth screens. assuming that you value "increasing your score via Director calls" above **a game which does not turn sour**. Peter Gill. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 05:01:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29I19u12062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:01:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29I0nt12054 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:00:50 +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 SAA18143 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:00:39 GMT Message-ID: <3AA91A67.CD6457E3@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 19:01:11 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] theory of random minors. References: <3.0.6.32.20010308135832.00848100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <015a01c0a857$a0995b80$c2abaec7@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman a écrit : > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > A score years ago, a great bridge theorist called Jean-René Vernes > > discovered, based on ststistical analysis of championship deals, that > rules > > for deciding which minor to open on a balanced hand without a good major > > (good enough to be opened in your system, whatever that means) were bad : > > they gave more information to the opponents than they did to partner. > > > > This creates several new ideas about systems : > > > > 1) use 1C and 1D in a somewhat artificial sense, like opening 1C on > > balanced hands when you hold a 4-card major, and 1D when you don't > (playing > > 5-card majors) ; or opening 1C on 11-12 or 18, and 1D on 13-14 or 19-20 > > (alternatively, if you play 10-12 NT, open 1C on 13-14 or 17-18 and 1D on > > 15-16 or 19-20) . > > I know of players using those methods, and they seem to have success with > > them. > > [s] > > > given > > that choosing your minor opening according to a simple rule (like longest > > minor, best in case of equal number) seems to work badly, why not suppress > > any rule ? > > > > Hello Alain, > > This in intruiging, if only because of Vernes's credentials as a bridge > theorist. Can you give us any hints as to the method that helped him reach > this conclusion? For example, how did Vernes know which pairs had rules (for > choosing a minor with a balanced hand that cannot open a major or no trump) > and which did not? Also, which kind of information did he find to be the > worst to give out---was it relative high-card placement, relative length, or > what? > > It seems odd, that the above examples of good new ideas under 1) are all > cases of rules for deciding which minor to open on a balanced hand that > cannot open a major or no trump, and therefore, by Vernes's conclusion, bad. > Sounds paradoxical to me. > > Furthermore, without choosing your longer minor on balanced hands, > pre-emptive minor suit raises are severly hampered, and I thought his law > endorsed them. > > Jerry Fusselman the conclusions vernes drew (in early seventies) from analysis of world championship deals was that it was counterproductive to waste 2 opening bids (especially 1C and 1D the more valuable ones) only to decribe minors lengths (as long as i remember he didn't consider the choice of which minor to open with balanced hands). When he then elaborated his own system (Majeure d'Abord), he brought his ideas into operation by using only one opening bid (1D) for minors (long clubs, long diamonds, minor 2-suiters or balanced hands without 4 hearts or 4 spades) and by using the 1C opening for an entirely different purpose (hands with 4 spades, either balanced or with some other longer suit). No randomisation in this system but nowadays, there is a debate between french experts of natural bidding, about usefulness and legality to use some or other criterion to open the longer, shorter, stronger or weaker minor with balanced hands. JP Rocafort > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 05:26:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29IQD912215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:26:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29IPqt12208 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:25:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29BaVH03688; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:36:31 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:29:53 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01030911363101.03606@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Ed Reppert wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >Talk to the ACBL about it, they consider it to be part of the > >system. Further, if you open based on losing trick count, you must > >pre-alert that here. > > Who at ACBL has said that? And here is the entire text of the > regulation regarding pre-alerts. Where is the part about losing trick > count? > >3. SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS > >When you play a system structured along different agreements than > >these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention > >card before the round begins. It could be argued that a system based on a undamentally different method of hand evaluation requires a pre-alert. I don't think this is the case, though, because it doesn't require a fundamentally different defense. The ACBL's example of a 10-12 1NT opening, with 1C opened on 13-15 balanced and 1D opened on 16-18 balanced, does require a pre-alert because the opponents need to determine in advance whether to treat the 1C and 1D openings, often made on doubletons, as natural. But if you play a system which looks like a standard system or a big-club system except that you count points differently, I wouldn't interpret the system as being fundamentally unfamiliar to the opponents (provided that it is properly disclosed, such as a 2C opening showing 0-4 losers). My point earlier in this discussion is that if you and your partner use fundamentally different methods of hand evaluation, you are not playing the same system. If you and your partner use the same methods of hand evaluation but your partner is a Walrus and you use expert judgment, you are playing the same system with different judgement. -- 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 Mar 10 05:51:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29IpO212381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:51:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29Ip9t12376 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:51:10 +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 NAA18399 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:57:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103091857.NAA18399@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200103090017.TAA20342@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200103090017.TAA20342@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:57:37 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The last time I remember this topic coming up, I wrote http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/archives/ bridge-laws.9810/Author/article-742.html (sorry about the wrapping). The arguments still hold, and I'm still as adamant about the footnote being correct as I was 2.5 years ago. I'll try to not cover the same points again. P.S. Markus, would it be possible/easy to put in a search feature into the archive? Or a pull-by-author on a less granular basis than one month? P.P.S. Thanks again, Markus, for all the work you do for this - and you don't seem to get anything out of it yourself. On 8 March 2001 at 19:17, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "David Burn" >> Received wisdom (and, indeed, the current Laws) holds that it is not in >> itself an infraction to forget your side's methods. There are >> circumstances in which you can do this "without penalty", > >I think a lot of problems would be solved if we required much stronger >evidence before ruling misbid. At the extreme, we could require a long >history of _correct_ usage, not just a note on the convention card. Oh good. Nail all the people changing system, new partnerships, and especially pickup partnerships. What a *great* way to improve interest in this game. Ok, so that's an extreme view. I don't agree with it, as you might see, and I don't think you want to go that far, either (but others have suggested the like in all seriousness). I don't think "misbids that work", frustrating to the opponents as they are, need to be legislated out of the game. (with one exception, see below). I have misbid, violently, three times this year. Each time we got a bad result (ok, one was good, but worse than it would have been without my misbid). I don't think the bridge world needs to be protected any more than they are against "misbids that work", given their already strong positive expectation (naturally, and legally) against misbids. It's just that the fixes stick in people's minds longer than the "he, he, idiot"s. >That way psychs and _rare_ misbids would not be considered infractions, >but both frequent misbids and failure to have clear agreements would be >treated as MI. > Another nail in the coffin for pickup partnerships and novices. A CoC in the World/National championships; ok. A regulation that enforces this for pairs *who have to submit their system in advance*; sure. In general? No. No. Please, no. Frequent misbids? If you can come up with a liberal definition of "frequent", ok, maybe I'll go with that. >Reasonable people will no doubt differ in their opinions of just how >far we ought to go in this direction, but I think the present "accept >any statement of a misbid at face value" approach is too weak. But it isn't "any statement"; it's "evidence to the contrary". And, as I said in 1998, I strongly disagree with attempts to strengthen this criterion. >In David >B.'s case ("strong" 2H that turned out to be weak), the prior mistake in >the same session (!) strongly suggests MI. I have sympathy. I would put to the opponents the "make your system, tell me what it is; and remember it, please. Further 'mistakes' will be penalized under L74B1 (and possibly L72B1, too). But I don't think there's redress, nor do I think there should be. I am willing to make an exception for auctions that this player or this pair have a *history of misbidding* - note, not "not a history of getting right"; examples like 1NT-2D "transfer or diamonds", 1NT "we're playing 12-14, but he often forgets", or (1NT)-2C "'Landy' or clubs" - so common, supposedly, that Anderson's book on Lebensohl suggests playing Leb. for clubs over 2C Landy. Oh, and anyone that caters for it should get violently introduced to L73C and L40D and E (not that they do). Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 06:01:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29J1O012441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:01:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29J0xt12435 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:01:01 +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 LAA13990; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:00:50 -0800 Message-Id: <200103091900.LAA13990@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 09 Mar 2001 11:29:53 GMT." <01030911363101.03606@psa836> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 11:00:49 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >Talk to the ACBL about it, they consider it to be part of the >system. Further, if you open based on losing trick count, you must >pre-alert that here. David Grabiner wrote: > My point earlier in this discussion is that if you and your partner use > fundamentally different methods of hand evaluation, you are not playing > the same system. If you and your partner use the same methods of hand > evaluation but your partner is a Walrus and you use expert judgment, > you are playing the same system with different judgement. You know, I wonder if people who allegedly "open based on losing trick count" are actually using that as *the* hand evaluation method? I'm not an LTC fan and haven't read much about it; but from what I've heard, hands with 7 or fewer losers are supposed to be considered OK to open, while hands with 8+ losers aren't. So would such a person open x Kxx KQxx xxxxx? This is a 7-loser hand. So is Axxx AKxx Axx xx. Does someone who "opens based on losing trick count" evaluate both these hands to be equally worthy of opening? If they do, then I guess they should pre-alert, since this is far removed from usual practice. However, my guess is that they really don't. It seems more likely to me that they open approximately the same hands all the other Standard players do, using LTC to downgrade and pass some hands that Walri would open. (All right, "Walruses".) If this means they treat Qx as worth no more than xx, good for them. But that by itself hardly merits a pre-alert, or bars them from playing with Walruses who think Qx is worth two Work schmoints. -- 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 Mar 10 06:04:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29J3wM12459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:03:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29J3ot12455 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:03:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:00:17 -0800 Message-ID: <003e01c0a8cb$a364e5e0$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <007d01c0a7b9$52294a80$54d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3AA8924A.CCA2D691@comarch.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:58:38 -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: "Konrad Ciborowski" >David Stevenson a écrit : >> > >> Diamond screens? > > /\ > / \ > -------------- > | / \ | > | / \ | > |/ \| > / \ > \ / > |\ /| > | \ / | > | \ / | > -------------- > \ / > \/ > >> Now you can see both oppos but not pd. >I guess we have been here before. Playing >with diamond screens is tantamount to not using >screens at all. The time factor is only one virtue of standard screens, not the only one. If you remember why screens originated, the inability to see one's partner was the main consideration. >You know the exact moment when >your LHO & RHO made their bids/plays so you >know how much time partner took to make his >bid/play. David's (?) excellent idea could incorporate a method to disguise each player's thinking time. If there is a way to prevent a player from knowing when RHO's time period starts, then RHO can delay acting when an opposing action seems too fast for the circumstances, or when RHO wants a bit more time hirself. A player would then not see partner's action until RHO decides to reveal it. In total effect, the time consideration would be unchanged from that of the standard screen. The mechanics of accomplishing this are a bit of a challenge. I envision a circular "lazy suzan" that carries calls from one player to another under the screens, each player perhaps having a different bidding card color. Only a bidder's LHO can move the lazy susan. The actual screen geometry should be octagonal, with each player facing a flat area rather than a vertex. The ability to get information secretly from both opponents, not possible with or without screens now, is a big plus for this concept. 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 Sat Mar 10 06:26:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JPw512581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:25:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29JPmt12577 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:25:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19277 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:32:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103091932.OAA19277@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:32:19 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8 March 2001 at 17:30, "Norman Scorbie" wrote: >I said the method was dishonest, not that he was. > But not illegal, unless of course, it is :-). I don't believe it's any more dishonest than 1C "clubs or 15-17 NT", 1D "diamonds or 13-15- NT". I think avoiding the problem totally by opening all balanced ("hands I would open in NT if they were in my opening NT range", Alain) hands with 33, 43, or 44 in the minors 1C is probably easier (though it does mean that 1D is a real suit, and you're less likely to pick off their minor. OK, open all the NT but not NT hands 1D instead. Makes it harder on the opponents.) Note that there isn't anything dishonest about not opening your longest or strongest suit, systemically, no matter why you choose to do this. I do it all the time (being that I play 5cM, or course). Choosing to minimize the information passed to opponents (and partner, true) when what you really want to do is open in NT makes sense, really, though it will give you trouble when opponents interfere. >I don't believe a word of this, anyway, frankly. Are you trying to get us to >believe a)that all his opponents would be warned of this at the start of >every round, b)given time to discuss how to deal with it Yes. Especially in the EBU, where there's a "bids that may require defence" section on the *front* of the CC, right below the "general system" section that the opponents are *required* to read and know. >and c)he's not just >trying to create an ambiguous situation where he's in control and his >opponents might be at a loss? Sure he is. He's saying "partner, either I have a hand with the suit opened or a NT hand within these ranges: xxx and xxx". Nothing wrong with that at all, provided it's disclosed. This is a very common, even expected part of bidding theory. And in many cases, it's legal under SO regulations (different cases for different SOs). I'm sure that in the game being talked about (I assume JP is talking about the YC bearpit) the Multi 2D is allowed, and probably the 2S weak preempt in a minor, if not the Terrorist 2S (weak preempt in a suit) or Wilkosz 2D (5-5, not both minors). All these gain most of their benefits from freeing up other bids to help clean up their system; but certainly a significant benefit is to create an "ambiguous situation where our side is more in control". Nothing dishonest about this, unless partner is more able to clear up the ambiguity *in other ways than by subsequent calls and plays* than the opponents. >Come off it. It's not even a situation where >he's worked for years on his system like Meckstroth and Rodwell to gain the >upper hand, it's something he could concoct in five seconds. > So? I play one system that was concocted in about 30 seconds - the whole system. Schenken publicised his Big Club with the title "Better bidding in 15 minutes". > >What happens when he opens one diamond without spending half an hour adding >together his spot cards, dividing the answer by three and opening a diamond if it comes to less than fifteen, and a club if it comes to more than >fifteen(three seconds to devise that: Eat your heart out, Matey)? Do we >assume it's natural? > Well, I assume that partner calls the director, says "Partner has opened 1D with uncommon haste. This is the likely cause of it...", and lives under his L73C requirements. Oh, and tells "Alf" to never do it again. Or, if this doesn't happen, and John P. finds out about it, that serious PPs fall down from the sky like rain. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 06:32:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JW0f12627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:32:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29JVqt12623 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:31:53 +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 OAA19392 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:38:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103091938.OAA19392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <+XVbsuBJQ7p6EwuD@asimere.com> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <+XVbsuBJQ7p6EwuD@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:38:22 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8 March 2001 at 16:32, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >Finally - do we permit random minors? - I believe No in the UK if we're >going to open 1C on both 3352 and 3325. > >Can we use random minor with 3433 and 4333? To this I believe the >answer is Yes in the UK as the choice is not a method whose primary >objective is to disrupt opponents. The rule in the ACBL is "disrupt opponents' methods". Otherwise we get into preempts, weak jump shifts, and suchlike, which primarily disrupt the opponents... Of course, you could be more polite in the Old Country. (The difference between 3325 and 3433 is pretty much a non-issue in the ACBL, of course; under the GCC or higher 1C or 1D can be used as an artificial call of any sort provided it promises 10 HCP. From what I have been told, this was designed to specifically allow differentiation of NT hands with 1C-1x-1NT and 1D-1M-1NT. Partner's tendencies, of course, is the same problem throughout the world.) Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 06:35:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JYwc12673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:34:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JY8t12658 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:34:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:01:24 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26AoZU11942 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 04:50:35 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26AKPF17066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:20:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26AJjt17046 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:19:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-70-191.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.70.191]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09026 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:19:14 GMT Message-ID: <002001c0a627$043213e0$bf46063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: [BLML] .quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo .. (was St. P) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:18:44 -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 "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: . ------------ \x/ -------------- > > To have sensible rulings by ACs and TDs .............. > ........... terminology has to be understood. > +=+ It is part of their education that they read the definitions in the law book. In the main subscribers to blml are also 'educated', possibly from choice. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 06:35:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JZ3o12678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:35:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JYDt12660 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:34:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:44:04 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26BfRA20459 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:41:28 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26B66820756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:06:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26B5ht20650 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:05:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-234.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.234]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f26B5XS21874 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:05:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 11:53:36 +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] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@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: > > > >This is important, in the light of several other rulings. > > I think we realised that, as well. > > >A pair are in 3Sp, after a misexplanation from opponents. > >They make 10 tricks. The rest of the room is in 4Sp, making > >11. > >What is the AS ? +420 or +450 ? > >Most of us would say +420. (after seeing that nothing > >special happened in the play that would not have happened in > >the game contract). > >But David's line of reasoning seems to suggest that the AS > >is and should always be +450. > > Eh? We do not look at other scores, as TDs are trained not to, so how > would we have the faintest idea what the rest of the room is doing? Well, consider "the rest of the room are in +450" as meaning "there are always 11 tricks on the hand". Shortcut ! > And > how is this relevant anyway? Whether IWoG [RoW] WoG [EBU] egregious > [ACBL] action [1] is present is a decision taken by looking at the hand > and hearing the arguments. > > [1] Just couldn't resist the acronyms game! > put them in your list ! Anyway. The idea "you must continue to play bridge" is just another way towards saying - don't try for double shots, please. I never did understand why the EBU wanted to remove the I from IWoG. Now when it seems that revokes are among what is intended, I am not certain as to whether it is a good thing that they did. After all, this is a huge step in a sideways direction. I can understand it when you are trying to be lenient towards NOs. Bad bridge is not a problem, when you are placed in a situation that you shouldn't be in. The sentence is "you should continue to play bridge", not "good bridge". But bidding 7NT after an infraction is not Wild, or even Gambling, it's plain Irrational. I always thought the three words went together, not that they were three separate classes of action, easily classified. After all, the answer to the question "would you consider 7NT wild, gambling or irrational ?" is "YES". > -- > 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/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 06:35:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JZ3S12677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:35:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JY8t12657 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:34:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:33:12 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26BUZA14785 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:30:36 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26AsBo18557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:54:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Arxt18542 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:54:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14aF6I-000LYy-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:53:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:15:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@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 >In short, I would not rule at all until I knew what North-South's >agreement was as to the pass of 3C doubled. As to how the Director >ruled, I neither know nor care. If he knew his business, he would have >enquired the meaning of South's pass, and the information would have >been supplied to us. Since it has not been, then either: he did not ask, >in which case he is a jackass and his ruling is of no interest to me; or >he did ask, and the information has been withheld from us in order to >create a more interesting problem, in which case the problem-setter is >a... well, he is someone whom I am very glad to see back on BLML, and to >whom despite previous differences I send my very best wishes for a >speedy and complete recovery. Yes, I can see that the question should have been asked. In fact it was not, but from everything else that was told to the Director I am confident that the correct answer would have been "no agreement". -- 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 Mar 10 06:35:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JZ1X12675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:35:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JY8t12659 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:34:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:00:26 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26AvnA30796 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 04:57:49 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26AKOa17065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:20:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26AJjt17047 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:19:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-70-191.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.70.191]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09001 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:19:12 GMT Message-ID: <001f01c0a627$03610840$bf46063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] St Paul's Cathedral Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 07:56:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Proper words in proper places" (Dean Swift) <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] St Paul's Cathedral > (Christopher Wren was buried in St Paul's Cathedral, > under a plain slab of stone. Its inscription was, "If you > seek my monument, look around you.") > +=+ "Si monumentum requiris, circumspice" - words placed in the Cathedral by his son. We think Sir Christopher is still there. ~ 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 Sat Mar 10 06:35:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JZRR12685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:35:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JYxt12676 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:35:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:48:04 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26FjRA25976 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:45:28 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26EnLe16225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:49:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26EnAt16178 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:49:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id PAA09871; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:45:14 +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 PAA23866; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:48:46 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010306155121.0082ed10@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 Mar 2001 15:51:21 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@127.0.0.1> References: <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:10 6/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 12:03 AM 3/6/01, Jerry wrote: > >>So "need to know" is a bad criterion for asking. It seems to me the advice >>to bridge players should be: >> >>1. As you said, do not ask for partner's benefit if you understand what is >>going on. >>2. Do *not* ask _only_ when you need to know. That passes UI to >>partner and >>needless benefit to opps. Instead ask systematically or randomly. > >I consider myself an ethical player (admittedly, doesn't everyone?), >but my habit is not to ask every time, to ask randomly, nor to ask only >when I need to know the answer. I ask whenever I don't know the answer >and don't find it on my opponent's CC, and keep my mouth shut when I do. > >Is that inappropriate? AG : to the contrary, it's very good on principle. But most of the exponents of this theory apply it imperfectly, that is, if they have no interest in knowing, they don't check the CC, thus don't ask. This sometimes gives away UI. If you do otherwise, if you really ask every time you don't know, that's perfect. >As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know >what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect >your own calls? AG : not really. However, if I acted that way, I'd feel necessary to tell the opponents, as a pre-alert, 'we often ask just to know'. Meaning, don't try and take inferences from our interest (which they are, remember, allowed to do). 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 07:10:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29Jp7F12815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:51:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JoPt12802 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:50:26 +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 OAA18194 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:50:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA27968 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:50:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:50:19 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103091950.OAA27968@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk SW>I think a lot of problems would be solved if we required much stronger SW>evidence before ruling misbid. At the extreme, we could require a long SW>history of _correct_ usage, not just a note on the convention card. > From: Michael Farebrother > Oh good. Nail all the people changing system, new partnerships, and > especially pickup partnerships. What a *great* way to improve interest > in this game. It's better for interest in bridge that their opponents take the loss instead? > It's just > that the fixes stick in people's minds longer than the "he, he, idiot"s. Fair enough. On the other hand, where Ghestem is popular, there does seem to be a genuine problem. > Another nail in the coffin for pickup partnerships and novices. Not in my view. "Sorry, we're a pickup partnership and we haven't discussed that," is a perfectly proper explanation (if true), and always should be. What is illegal now is saying "strong" when the correct answer is the one above. The problem is enforcement. The player says, "See it says right here on our CC that it is strong." Of course his partner hasn't looked at that part of the CC, but the ruling is still misbid. > I am willing to make an exception for auctions that this player or this > pair have a *history of misbidding* This isn't an exception. Opponents are _entitled_ to know the partnership experience, not just the explicit agreements. "Our system notes say strong, but when he bid it three rounds ago, he was weak," is fine. Leaving out the last clause is an infraction. I don't think Michael and I have much disagreement on the underlying principles. At least I hope not. Where we seem to differ is on the standard of evidence needed to prove misbid rather than MI. I am not seriously advocating my "extreme" view presented above, except perhaps for very high-level events. On the other hand, just the CC (or the player's unsupported word) seems to me too weak. Michael (I gather) thinks the standard is just fine the way it is, and that is surely a reasonable opinion. Would someone like to suggest a happy compromise? Or does everyone else share Michael's view? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 07:19:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29KJUG13058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 07:19:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29KJJt13054 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 07:19:20 +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 f29KJEI90110 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 15:19:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010309143725.00b71bf0@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 Mar 2001 15:19:02 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! In-Reply-To: <200103090017.TAA20342@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 07:17 PM 3/8/01, Steve wrote: >I think a lot of problems would be solved if we required much stronger >evidence before ruling misbid. At the extreme, we could require a long >history of _correct_ usage, not just a note on the convention card. Well, it would surely solve at least one problem: having to find volunteers to staff the partnership desk! >That way psychs and _rare_ misbids would not be considered infractions, >but both frequent misbids and failure to have clear agreements would be >treated as MI. It would be awfully hard to call a misbid that actually occurred in 100% of the situations in which it might have occurred "rare". But that includes the case where two strangers met at the partnership desk five minutes before game time, and the presumptive misbid occurred on the first board. Or is Steve suggesting different rules for regular vs. pick-up partnerships? What about novices who simply haven't yet learned how to bid? What about experts who never misbid playing their regular methods but want to try out something new? >Reasonable people will no doubt differ in their opinions of just how >far we ought to go in this direction, but I think the present "accept >any statement of a misbid at face value" approach is too weak. In David >B.'s case ("strong" 2H that turned out to be weak), the prior mistake in >the same session (!) strongly suggests MI. I don't believe that this is anything like present practice. The footnote to L75D2 says "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary". In my experience, most TDs have no trouble following this. Some (any many ACs) do, but only in that they go too far in the opposite direction from what Steve suggests, ruling mistaken explanation only when there is no "proof", as opposed to "mere evidence", to the contrary. I am opposed on principle to "punishing" players for not knowing what they're doing; it discourages weak players, pickup partnerships, and experimentation with unfamiliar methods. Yes, I understand that when a player gets an unfavorable ruling for saying "that's the Flapjack convention, showing four hearts and five diamonds" when the correct disclosure would be "I think that's the Flapjack convention, which I think shows four hearts and five diamonds, but I really don't know what I'm doing" we punish them for giving misinformation, not for not knowing their methods, but the difference is a lot more obvious to us BLML bridge-law mavens than it might be to the person who just doesn't know what they're doing. Granted, we need rules against MI, so to some extent this can't be helped. Sometimes we have to rule on obvious MI, and sometimes we have to rule on obvious misbids, but all too often we have to rule on simple flailing-in-the-dark confusion, which isn't really either. We must rule in those situations, though, under either the laws governing MI or the laws governing misbids, as those are the tools the law provides, so we must make a presumption one way or the other. As I read the law, we rule based on the preponderance of the evidence, or MI in the absence of evidence either way. I think this is about right, but don't want to encourage further movement in the direction of punishing players for not knowing what they're doing, especially as too many ACs (at least in the ACBL) seem to be going beyond what the law requires in that direction anyhow. If we're going to make almost every misbid potentially redressable as MI, we might as well let Mr. Wolff have his way and just outlaw "convention disruption". 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 Mar 10 07:55:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29KoRI13908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 07:50:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29Knet13894 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 07:49:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:39:19 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f25Gw9U16767 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:58:09 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25FRlY25019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:27:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f25FRMt24945 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:27:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA27677; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:23:15 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id QAA24773; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:26:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010305162923.0088a940@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 Mar 2001 16:29:23 +0100 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! 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 00:56 5/03/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > B32 -- W N E S > E/W KJT94 > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P > T98 3S P 4S X >AKJT43 Q2 AP >A83 ++ Q7652 >5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C >Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty > 98765 oriented: description later > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" > TMS A973 4Sx-1 > KJ42 > > North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as H + D. She >said everyone does so where she plays. South agreed he had probably got >it wrong. The description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". > > East-West said that: > >1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double of 3C >showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements of a double of >3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to the doubt over the meaning >of the double. >2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. >3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if he had known >that it was not one of North's suits. > > So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? AG : man bites dog. I'm along the less severe. North had the information that partner had misunderstood. If he hadn't, and if West had passed, he would have taken South's pass at its face value - I don't have any preference between H and D. That the pass is to play would be a strange agreement indeed. He would probably have taken out to 3D. So, please tell me, why should the final contract be 5C ?? If you think 3C means both 'no prefenrence' and 'club tolerance', then the final contract will be 3CX. Thus, I could understand 3CX -2 (or perhaps -3), but 5C, why, why ? when you are doubled in 3C, do you play 5C ? Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically gets a bottom and the interdiction to play the convention for the remaining of the event. It was seriously considered by Belgian authorities that Ghestem would be 'yellow', the highest degree of artificiality. It seems that Ghestem is, by far, the convention that creates the most MI and systemic errors. 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 08:19:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29LIj314633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 08:18:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29LIIt14625 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 08:18:19 +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 f29LIBq50501 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:18:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010309153005.00b74420@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 Mar 2001 16:17:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <200103091900.LAA13990@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 02:00 PM 3/9/01, Adam wrote: >David Grabiner wrote: > > > My point earlier in this discussion is that if you and your partner use > > fundamentally different methods of hand evaluation, you are not playing > > the same system. If you and your partner use the same methods of hand > > evaluation but your partner is a Walrus and you use expert judgment, > > you are playing the same system with different judgement. I disagree with David; I'd restate that as "if you and your partner use different methods of hand evaluation that lead to a significant difference in actions taken with similar hands, you are not playing the same system". If in one case I count Goren points and "use expert judgment" while my partner counts Goren points and is a Walrus, while in another case I count losing tricks and use expert judgment while my partner counts Goren points and is a Walrus, but we each make the same bids in either case, we either are or are not playing the same system depending on how often our bids differ; how we got to those bids just doesn't matter. The contrary view leads to a "slippery slope" dilemma. If we call HCP and LTC "fundamentally different" (and believe that it matters), then what about HCP+LTC and LTC alone? What about HCP+LTC and HCP+"expert judgement"? When I pick up a hand I might bid on, I count HCP, Goren points, losers and quick tricks. If they overwhelmingly suggest a particular call I make it. If they disagree, I may go on to count by Kaplan points, adjusted LTC, and who knows what else. My partner may do much the same, except he's never heard of LTC, so he applies his version of "judgment" by throwing in Stayman points, which I don't know. Are our methods of evaluation "fundamentally different"? Is there really a practical difference between "expert judgment" and merely knowing lots of different ways to evaluate a hand? If partner will open a particular 12 HCP hand that I won't, I don't see how it should matter whether my reason for passing the hand is that it has seven losers, or that it has only 1-1/2 QT, or that my "expert judgment" tells me it's not an opening bid. Whether this means we're playing different systems can only be a matter of how often it happens, not why. Some "FTR" comments for Adam: >You know, I wonder if people who allegedly "open based on losing trick >count" are actually using that as *the* hand evaluation method? No. LTC is designed for the purpose of evaluating distributional hands only. Pairs who say "we open based on LTC" will be using LTC for unbalanced hands and some kind of point-count method for balanced hands. >I'm >not an LTC fan and haven't read much about it; but from what I've >heard, hands with 7 or fewer losers are supposed to be considered OK >to open, while hands with 8+ losers aren't. So would such a person >open x Kxx KQxx xxxxx? This is a 7-loser hand. No. Six losers is considered the equivalent of a normal minimum opening. The seven-loser rule comes from "Animal Acol", the only system (AFAIK) that ever incorporated LTC evaluation as a fundamental basis of the system. But Animal was unabashedly very much a "light initial actions" system. >So is Axxx AKxx Axx >xx. Does someone who "opens based on losing trick count" evaluate >both these hands to be equally worthy of opening? No, see above. Balanced hands are treated differently from unbalanced hands. >If they do, then I guess they should pre-alert, since this is far >removed from usual practice. However, my guess is that they really >don't. It seems more likely to me that they open approximately the >same hands all the other Standard players do, using LTC to downgrade >and pass some hands that Walri would open. (All right, "Walruses".) >If this means they treat Qx as worth no more than xx, good for them. >But that by itself hardly merits a pre-alert, or bars them from >playing with Walruses who think Qx is worth two Work schmoints. They don't; Adam's guess is quite correct. So is his conclusion. If an LTC-counter who treats Qx as worth no more than xx is required to pre-alert, or is barred from playing with a HCP-counting Walrus who thinks it's worth the same as Qxx, then so must be a Goren-point counter who thinks that Qx is worth only half as much as Qxx. Or an "expert judgment" user who knows that it's worth less than Qxx but doesn't consciously quantify the difference. 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 Mar 10 09:10:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29M9gF23989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:09:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29M9Xt23985 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:09:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4qm.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.86]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA29164 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:09:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002901c0a8e5$cd36c630$5613f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010309153005.00b74420@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:10:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is so eminently sensible I am amazed that anyone would disagree. Attempts to impose some artificial measure of hand quality such as Work/Goren points for the trained judgement of a bridge player flies in the face of developing expertise through study and experience. The essence of bridge is that we can improve our games by working at it. Take that away and we might as well play tic tac toe. Therefore couching laws AND regulations in such terms as "a king below average strength" should be commended, and banning an opening with "less that 10 HCP" should be condemned. Tell me that you should pass AKQxxxxxxxxx - - x! Even a novice can find the spade slam. Points are a useful tool in hand evaluation; I find that honour tricks are also, and any sane measure of distributional and positional values is to be embraced as well. If you can find me one expert who will insist that rigid application of 4-3-2-1 HCP evaluation will make for better bidding, I will wonder what strange thinks he has been smoking or sniffing or imbibing. Let's not throw the baby (bridge) out with the bath of "full disclosure." Bridge is and always will be a game of judgement. Let us be thankful for that and eschew all attempts to forbid us exercising our judgement using all authorized information available to us and all legitimate means of evaluating that information at our disposal. Well said, Eric. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" "if you and your partner use > different methods of hand evaluation that lead to a significant > difference in actions taken with similar hands, you are not playing the > same system". If in one case I count Goren points and "use expert > judgment" while my partner counts Goren points and is a Walrus, while > in another case I count losing tricks and use expert judgment while my > partner counts Goren points and is a Walrus, but we each make the same > bids in either case, we either are or are not playing the same system > depending on how often our bids differ; how we got to those bids just > doesn't matter. > > The contrary view leads to a "slippery slope" dilemma. If we call HCP > and LTC "fundamentally different" (and believe that it matters), then > what about HCP+LTC and LTC alone? What about HCP+LTC and HCP+"expert > judgement"? When I pick up a hand I might bid on, I count HCP, Goren > points, losers and quick tricks. If they overwhelmingly suggest a > particular call I make it. If they disagree, I may go on to count by > Kaplan points, adjusted LTC, and who knows what else. My partner may > do much the same, except he's never heard of LTC, so he applies his > version of "judgment" by throwing in Stayman points, which I don't > know. Are our methods of evaluation "fundamentally different"? Is > there really a practical difference between "expert judgment" and > merely knowing lots of different ways to evaluate a hand? If partner > will open a particular 12 HCP hand that I won't, I don't see how it > should matter whether my reason for passing the hand is that it has > seven losers, or that it has only 1-1/2 QT, or that my "expert > judgment" tells me it's not an opening bid. Whether this means we're > playing different systems can only be a matter of how often it happens, > not why. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 10:59:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29NwRq16732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:58:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29NwEt16681 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:58:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-81-4.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.81.4]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA08473; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:57:41 GMT Message-ID: <003101c0a8f4$dd11ed00$0451063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D9@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:57:39 -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 "La genie n'est qu'une grande aptitude a la patience." - George-Louis De Buffon. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'David Stevenson' ; Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 1:01 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem again! > > > > > Kooijman, A. writes > ------------------- \x/ ----------------- > It sounds clever and futile, but what about 75B? In > my opinion this is not the spirit of the laws. We have > the same with forbidden psyches in strong conventional > opening bids. Justified with the same argument: you > only may use it when you don't psyche it. I have never > accepted that to be within the scope and the meaning > of the laws, even when Grattan tells me it is. While > trying to avoid openingbids of 1NT with 8-10 by > forbidding the use of conventions thereafter,though > not sportive,is legal conform L40D. > > ton > +=+ :-)) Ahaaa!! I am summoned to appear! It seems questionable to me that one may speak of the 'spirit of the laws'. Are not these the rules which define the game and by which it must be played? There is surely a spirit in which the game should be played, but as for the laws I believe these have not a spirit but an intention which is specified by the words of the laws and by the meanings attributed to them by the World Bridge Federation as the ultimate authority. I have not sought to 'tell' what is within the 'scope and meaning of the laws' so much as to report past deliberations. With regard to the power to prohibit the psyche of a conventional opening bid, as I have previously stated I was asked by the EBL (in 1984/5?) to ascertain from Edgar Kaplan whether a regulation with this effect was legal; he replied the power to regulate conventions was unrestricted so that such a regulation was legal. (The EBL already had the regulation in place for some years and was not mortified to have this assurance.) However, the matter did not rest there, in early drafts for the 1987 laws the drafting committee brought forward a proposal to insert words in Law 40 that would disallow any prohibition of psyching a convention. My notes of WBFLC meetings in Sao Paulo contain the following record: "" (i) General principle of construction of Law 40: it was agreed that section 40A states the general principle and that the subsequent sections are limitations upon the applications of that principle. (ii)(a) faced with the fact that the ACBL and the EBL both forbid, in pairs events, the psyche of an artificial/conventional opening bid it was agreed that the laws must bend to countenance this. It may be done under Section 40D. (b) .................. etc. "" [You may be amused to know that there was a man with two heads there who informed the WBFLC (a) that the English Bridge Union was in favour of the drafting committee's suggestion, and (b) that the European Bridge League was opposed to it. Pour la enieme fois le 'coup de la Manche'!] Two further pieces of intelligence: (A) some of the regulations in question refer to any artificial opening bid, not only strong ones; the last occasion of a violation that I recall involved a psyche of a Multi 2D. (B) the most recent sighting of such a regulation is in the Rules and Regulations for the European Open Pairs Championship, Sorrento, March 19-24, 2001. Having served, the Genie returns to the lamp. Ever, ~ 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 Mar 10 11:05:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2A04kW16985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:04:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umx-mail02.missouri.edu (umx-mail02.missouri.edu [128.206.10.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2A04Wt16974 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:04:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umx-mail02.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id GT3BV6XR; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:04:27 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:12:35 -0600 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: [BLML] Re: Ghestem again Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Would someone please explain what the usual Ghestem is? Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 11:26:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2A0KXe20202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:20:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f118.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2A0Jst20115 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:19:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:19:46 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:19:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:19:45 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2001 00:19:46.0231 (UTC) FILETIME=[CFC13C70:01C0A8F7] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk But this thread was not (originally) about judgement. You don't run a function to generate a random result, decide in your better judgement that you don't like it, and then run different ones until you get a result you like. That's not random. There can be no judgement involved in producing a random bid. So what about the original question in this thread? A pair play "random balanced minors". Is this legal? (My thoughts in parens.) Issues about randomness: 1.) Is it necessary that the random function be unbiased in its result? (no) 2.) Can you use external variables, i.e. # of letters in LHO's name? (yes) 3.) Can the function for generating your random number be cryptographically strong? (yes) 4.) Must the function ... cryptographically strong? (no) 5.) Can the generator be stochastic [including some random, non-reproduceable event as input, e.g. order of cards before you sorted, TD in line-of-sight when it's your turn to bid, etc.]? (yes) 6.) Must the generator be stochastic? (no) Issues about system: 1.) If the pair play different algorithms with different pdfs [probability distribution function], are these considered different systems? (yes) 2.) If the pair play different algorithms with the same pdf, is this considered playing different systems? (yes) 3.) If the pair play different algorithms with the same results, is this considered playing different systems? (no) Other issues about legality: 1.) If you decide to play different algorithms, can you reveal yours to your partner? 2.) Must you disclose your algorithm to opponents if they ask? (probably dependent on the answer to 1, above, but certainly yes if you've revealed it to partner.) 3.) Must you disclose your pdf to the opponents? (Yes. Partner, if ever paying attention, can reconstruct this from his experience, but apparently ignorance is bliss?) "Eric Landau" > > If partner will open a particular 12 HCP hand that I won't, I don't > > see how it should matter whether my reason for passing the hand is > > that it has seven losers, or that it has only 1-1/2 QT, or that > > my "expert judgment" tells me it's not an opening bid. Whether this > > means we're playing different systems can only be a matter of how > > often it happens, not why. If an equivalence relation existed between two systems, I'd agree (I don't find that one exists between rule of 20 and LTC), but as far as measuring error between them it might not be a matter of how often, but how jarringly. If you disagree about 2 hands out of a hundred (and agree about the 5 further below), but those 2 hands are: Qxxxxx Kxxxx Ax - AQ AQ AQ xxxxxxx is that more or less "the same system" as disagreeing about these 5 hands out of 100 being: Axxx Axx Axx Jxx AKx Axx xxx Jxxx KQx Kxx Qx Kxxxx QJx QJx QJx QJxx K Kxxx Kxxx KJxx and agreeing about the 2 futher above? -Todd >From: "Craig Senior" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. >Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:10:49 -0500 > >This is so eminently sensible I am amazed that anyone would >disagree. Attempts to impose some artificial measure of hand >quality such as Work/Goren points for the trained judgement of a >bridge player flies in the face of developing expertise through >study and experience. The essence of bridge is that we can >improve our games by working at it. Take that away and we might >as well play tic tac toe. > >Therefore couching laws AND regulations in such terms as "a king >below average strength" should be commended, and banning an >opening with "less that 10 HCP" should be condemned. Tell me >that you should pass AKQxxxxxxxxx - - x! Even a novice can find >the spade slam. Points are a useful tool in hand evaluation; I >find that honour tricks are also, and any sane measure of >distributional and positional values is to be embraced as well. > > If you can find me one expert who will insist that rigid >application of 4-3-2-1 HCP evaluation will make for better >bidding, I will wonder what strange thinks he has been smoking >or sniffing or imbibing. Let's not throw the baby (bridge) out >with the bath of "full disclosure." Bridge is and always will be >a game of judgement. Let us be thankful for that and eschew all >attempts to forbid us exercising our judgement using all >authorized information available to us and all legitimate means >of evaluating that information at our disposal. Well said, Eric. > >Craig > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > "if you and your partner use > > different methods of hand evaluation that lead to a >significant > > difference in actions taken with similar hands, you are not >playing the > > same system". If in one case I count Goren points and "use >expert > > judgment" while my partner counts Goren points and is a >Walrus, while > > in another case I count losing tricks and use expert judgment >while my > > partner counts Goren points and is a Walrus, but we each make >the same > > bids in either case, we either are or are not playing the same >system > > depending on how often our bids differ; how we got to those >bids just > > doesn't matter. > > > > The contrary view leads to a "slippery slope" dilemma. If we >call HCP > > and LTC "fundamentally different" (and believe that it >matters), then > > what about HCP+LTC and LTC alone? What about HCP+LTC and >HCP+"expert > > judgement"? When I pick up a hand I might bid on, I count >HCP, Goren > > points, losers and quick tricks. If they overwhelmingly >suggest a > > particular call I make it. If they disagree, I may go on to >count by > > Kaplan points, adjusted LTC, and who knows what else. My >partner may > > do much the same, except he's never heard of LTC, so he >applies his > > version of "judgment" by throwing in Stayman points, which I >don't > > know. Are our methods of evaluation "fundamentally >different"? Is > > there really a practical difference between "expert judgment" >and > > merely knowing lots of different ways to evaluate a hand? If >partner > > will open a particular 12 HCP hand that I won't, I don't see >how it > > should matter whether my reason for passing the hand is that >it has > > seven losers, or that it has only 1-1/2 QT, or that my "expert > > judgment" tells me it's not an opening bid. Whether this >means we're > > playing different systems can only be a matter of how often it >happens, > > not why. > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Sat Mar 10 11:30:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2A0U5C22656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:30:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2A0Tet22579 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:29:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.49.206.98] (helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14bXFw-000J89-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:29:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:27:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <200103091932.OAA19277@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200103091932.OAA19277@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200103091932.OAA19277@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, Michael Farebrother writes random minors. Actually he's got a 30-page set of system notes which he wants to put past the committee, and this is one of about 8 different things he'd like to play. I've told him he can call it random minor, if and only if, he has a post-facto method of demonstrating his choice. That is he cannot toss a coin, as this is not reproducible, and he can't read it off his watch face. It has to be something related to the condition of the board at the point he withdraws his hand and inspects the face of his cards. I have accepted I do not need to know his algorithm, just the expectancy of outcome, unless he gets challenged. ... at which point it will be my duty to protect him. > >>Come off it. It's not even a situation where >>he's worked for years on his system like Meckstroth and Rodwell to gain the >>upper hand, it's something he could concoct in five seconds. >> >So? I play one system that was concocted in about 30 seconds - the >whole system. Schenken publicised his Big Club with the title "Better >bidding in 15 minutes". >> >>What happens when he opens one diamond without spending half an hour adding >>together his spot cards, dividing the answer by three and opening a diamond >if it comes to less than fifteen, and a club if it comes to more than >>fifteen(three seconds to devise that: Eat your heart out, Matey)? Do we >>assume it's natural? I use up to 3 algorithms based on the content of my hand which give me a parity check while I'm sorting my cards. This is *not* a problem. Certainly if I hold QJ tight in a suit I know which one I will play if there's a PRC situation before I've finished sorting. It's not quite 50-50 as it happens, but that's not relevant. >> >Well, I assume that partner calls the director, says "Partner has >opened 1D with uncommon haste. This is the likely cause of it...", and >lives under his L73C requirements. Oh, and tells "Alf" to never do it >again. Or, if this doesn't happen, and John P. finds out about it, that >serious PPs fall down from the sky like rain. Quite 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/ -- 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 Mar 10 11:39:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2A0dG924928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:39:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2A0crt24855 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:38:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14bXPB-0003Tc-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:38:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:29:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AA37030.D68E7A99@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: >> And >> how is this relevant anyway? Whether IWoG [RoW] WoG [EBU] egregious >> [ACBL] action [1] is present is a decision taken by looking at the hand >> and hearing the arguments. >> >> [1] Just couldn't resist the acronyms game! >put them in your list ! > >Anyway. > >The idea "you must continue to play bridge" is just another >way towards saying - don't try for double shots, please. No, it isn't. It came from the ACBL, and for some years they have been denying redress when NOs make mistakes even where there cannot be any chance of the double shot. >I never did understand why the EBU wanted to remove the I >from IWoG. Same argument: we are interested in stopping the double shot. Irrational acts are not attempts at the double shot. >Now when it seems that revokes are among what is intended, I >am not certain as to whether it is a good thing that they >did. >After all, this is a huge step in a sideways direction. Are you suggesting that players revoke as an attempt to get a double shot? >I can understand it when you are trying to be lenient >towards NOs. Bad bridge is not a problem, when you are >placed in a situation that you shouldn't be in. The >sentence is "you should continue to play bridge", not "good >bridge". >But bidding 7NT after an infraction is not Wild, or even >Gambling, it's plain Irrational. >I always thought the three words went together, not that >they were three separate classes of action, easily >classified. Why? We say "irrational, wild *or* gambling", not *and*. >After all, the answer to the question "would you consider >7NT wild, gambling or irrational ?" is "YES". As you like. But since different authorities use different standards, others will use their own standard. Why not? ------ The original idea for split scores came from denying people the double shot. England feels they would like to follow the original view: the ACBL feels that kindness to NOs is not necessary if they make any sizeable mistake: the RoW is some way in-between. -- 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 Mar 10 12:53:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2A1rRq12001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:53:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f13.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2A1rBt11944 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:53:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:53:15 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.26 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:53:15 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.26] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: HarrisR@missouri.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Ghestem again Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:53:15 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2001 00:53:15.0509 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D60BA50:01C0A8FC] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk RHO opens 1suit. 2NT shows two lowest unbid suits 3C shows the two other unbid suits 2suit shows the outside unbid suits exception for 1C. 2D shows the two other unbid suits 3C, rather than 2C (alterable by agreement?), shows outside unbid suits It's meant for strong hands intending to buy the auction, even if it's a sac. -Todd >From: "Robert E. Harris" >To: >Subject: [BLML] Re: Ghestem again >Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:12:35 -0600 > >Would someone please explain what the usual Ghestem is? >Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 >Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia >Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mar 10 12:56:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2A1fxm09270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:41:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2A1fSt09173 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:41:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from [209.187.160.23] (HELO bickford1) by front002.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4b8) with SMTP id 46055270 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 20:41:19 -0500 Message-ID: <038401c0a903$abb5fa80$17a0bbd1@gw.totalweb.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au><4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 20:44:39 -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 I'd like to raise a point that occurs to me re the wild, irrational, or gambling test after MI (this may have been raised before but I do not recall it being addressed) Assume that a pair reaches 3S as a result of MI. Declarer, recognizing that the field will be in an easy 4 spades, adopts a line which would justify his bidding to only 3S. As a result of this anti-percentage play, he makes exactly 3S while normal play would make 4S. 1. Is this wild, irrational, or gambling? 2. Is declarer expected to assume he will receive adjustment for the MI and not take this abnormal line? Cheers..................../Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking > Herman De Wael writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> And > >> how is this relevant anyway? Whether IWoG [RoW] WoG [EBU] egregious > >> [ACBL] action [1] is present is a decision taken by looking at the hand > >> and hearing the arguments. > >> > >> [1] Just couldn't resist the acronyms game! > > >put them in your list ! > > > >Anyway. > > > >The idea "you must continue to play bridge" is just another > >way towards saying - don't try for double shots, please. > > No, it isn't. It came from the ACBL, and for some years they have > been denying redress when NOs make mistakes even where there cannot be > any chance of the double shot. > > >I never did understand why the EBU wanted to remove the I > >from IWoG. > > Same argument: we are interested in stopping the double shot. > Irrational acts are not attempts at the double shot. > > >Now when it seems that revokes are among what is intended, I > >am not certain as to whether it is a good thing that they > >did. > >After all, this is a huge step in a sideways direction. > > Are you suggesting that players revoke as an attempt to get a double > shot? > > >I can understand it when you are trying to be lenient > >towards NOs. Bad bridge is not a problem, when you are > >placed in a situation that you shouldn't be in. The > >sentence is "you should continue to play bridge", not "good > >bridge". > >But bidding 7NT after an infraction is not Wild, or even > >Gambling, it's plain Irrational. > >I always thought the three words went together, not that > >they were three separate classes of action, easily > >classified. > > Why? We say "irrational, wild *or* gambling", not *and*. > > >After all, the answer to the question "would you consider > >7NT wild, gambling or irrational ?" is "YES". > > As you like. But since different authorities use different standards, > others will use their own standard. Why not? > > ------ > > The original idea for split scores came from denying people the double > shot. England feels they would like to follow the original view: the > ACBL feels that kindness to NOs is not necessary if they make any > sizeable mistake: the RoW is some way in-between. > > -- > 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 Mar 10 18:46:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2A7jt614451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:45:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f124.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.124]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2A7jht14398 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:45:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:45:35 -0800 Received: from 172.138.115.105 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 07:45:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.138.115.105] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 23:45:34 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2001 07:45:35.0164 (UTC) FILETIME=[175C7FC0:01C0A936] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Bill Bickford" >I'd like to raise a point that occurs to me re the wild, irrational, or >gambling test after MI (this may have been raised before but I do not >recall >it being addressed) > >Assume that a pair reaches 3S as a result of MI. Declarer, recognizing >that >the field will be in an easy 4 spades, adopts a line which would justify >his >bidding to only 3S. As a result of this anti-percentage play, he makes >exactly 3S while normal play would make 4S. > >1. Is this wild, irrational, or gambling? What's the bridge reason for doing this? A safety play to guard against a 5-0 trump split would make immediate sense to me, but this doesn't. >2. Is declarer expected to assume he will receive adjustment for the MI and >not take this abnormal line? I don't think anyone here would encourage playing a hand with the expectation that the TD will adjust the score after you're done. -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 Mar 10 19:00:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2A80Zr18398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 19:00:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2A80Jt18333 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 19:00:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010310080016.RMDL17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]>; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:00:16 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Todd Zimnoch" CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 8:00:56 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010310080016.RMDL17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:19:45 -0800 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > But this thread was not (originally) about judgement. ... snip ... > > Issues about system: > 1.) If the pair play different algorithms with different pdfs [probability > distribution function], are these considered different systems? (yes) I don't see this at all. There are many partnerships in which with probability one, one player will take some action whilst in identical circumstances the other partner will take that action with probability zero. To me if the probability with which I open one minor (say diamonds) with a particular hand is p and partner's probability of opening the same hand 1d is q then that is a difference in judgement. Not to mention the fact that the algorithm may not even be part of our agreement. Which is certainly the case if both players use a different algorithm. > 2.) If the pair play different algorithms with the same pdf, is this > considered playing different systems? (yes) As above. > 3.) If the pair play different algorithms with the same results, is this > considered playing different systems? (no) > Ok I agree with this. > Other issues about legality: > 1.) If you decide to play different algorithms, can you reveal yours to your > partner? Yes - then it may become part of your agreements which will need to be disclosed. > 2.) Must you disclose your algorithm to opponents if they ask? (probably > dependent on the answer to 1, above, but certainly yes if you've revealed it > to partner.) Certainly not *unless* it is part of your agreements. > 3.) Must you disclose your pdf to the opponents? (Yes. Partner, if ever > paying attention, can reconstruct this from his experience, but apparently > ignorance is bliss?) Certainly not. Only disclose if you have an agreement. Otherwise all they are entitled to is your partnership experience which in most cases will not form a complete description of a pdf. > > "Eric Landau" > > > If partner will open a particular 12 HCP hand that I won't, I don't > > > see how it should matter whether my reason for passing the hand is > > > that it has seven losers, or that it has only 1-1/2 QT, or that > > > my "expert judgment" tells me it's not an opening bid. Whether this > > > means we're playing different systems can only be a matter of how > > > often it happens, not why. > > If an equivalence relation existed between two systems, I'd agree (I don't > find that one exists between rule of 20 and LTC), but as far as measuring > error between them it might not be a matter of how often, but how jarringly. > If you disagree about 2 hands out of a hundred (and agree about the 5 > further below), but those 2 hands are: > Qxxxxx Kxxxx Ax - > AQ AQ AQ xxxxxxx > is that more or less "the same system" as disagreeing about these 5 hands > out of 100 being: > Axxx Axx Axx Jxx > AKx Axx xxx Jxxx > KQx Kxx Qx Kxxxx > QJx QJx QJx QJxx > K Kxxx Kxxx KJxx > and agreeing about the 2 futher above? > > -Todd > > >From: "Craig Senior" > >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > >Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > >Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:10:49 -0500 > > > >This is so eminently sensible I am amazed that anyone would > >disagree. Attempts to impose some artificial measure of hand > >quality such as Work/Goren points for the trained judgement of a > >bridge player flies in the face of developing expertise through > >study and experience. The essence of bridge is that we can > >improve our games by working at it. Take that away and we might > >as well play tic tac toe. > > > >Therefore couching laws AND regulations in such terms as "a king > >below average strength" should be commended, and banning an > >opening with "less that 10 HCP" should be condemned. Tell me > >that you should pass AKQxxxxxxxxx - - x! Even a novice can find > >the spade slam. Points are a useful tool in hand evaluation; I > >find that honour tricks are also, and any sane measure of > >distributional and positional values is to be embraced as well. > > > > If you can find me one expert who will insist that rigid > >application of 4-3-2-1 HCP evaluation will make for better > >bidding, I will wonder what strange thinks he has been smoking > >or sniffing or imbibing. Let's not throw the baby (bridge) out > >with the bath of "full disclosure." Bridge is and always will be > >a game of judgement. Let us be thankful for that and eschew all > >attempts to forbid us exercising our judgement using all > >authorized information available to us and all legitimate means > >of evaluating that information at our disposal. Well said, Eric. > > > >Craig > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Eric Landau" > > "if you and your partner use > > > different methods of hand evaluation that lead to a > >significant > > > difference in actions taken with similar hands, you are not > >playing the > > > same system". If in one case I count Goren points and "use > >expert > > > judgment" while my partner counts Goren points and is a > >Walrus, while > > > in another case I count losing tricks and use expert judgment > >while my > > > partner counts Goren points and is a Walrus, but we each make > >the same > > > bids in either case, we either are or are not playing the same > >system > > > depending on how often our bids differ; how we got to those > >bids just > > > doesn't matter. > > > > > > The contrary view leads to a "slippery slope" dilemma. If we > >call HCP > > > and LTC "fundamentally different" (and believe that it > >matters), then > > > what about HCP+LTC and LTC alone? What about HCP+LTC and > >HCP+"expert > > > judgement"? When I pick up a hand I might bid on, I count > >HCP, Goren > > > points, losers and quick tricks. If they overwhelmingly > >suggest a > > > particular call I make it. If they disagree, I may go on to > >count by > > > Kaplan points, adjusted LTC, and who knows what else. My > >partner may > > > do much the same, except he's never heard of LTC, so he > >applies his > > > version of "judgment" by throwing in Stayman points, which I > >don't > > > know. Are our methods of evaluation "fundamentally > >different"? Is > > > there really a practical difference between "expert judgment" > >and > > > merely knowing lots of different ways to evaluate a hand? If > >partner > > > will open a particular 12 HCP hand that I won't, I don't see > >how it > > > should matter whether my reason for passing the hand is that > >it has > > > seven losers, or that it has only 1-1/2 QT, or that my "expert > > > judgment" tells me it's not an opening bid. Whether this > >means we're > > > playing different systems can only be a matter of how often it > >happens, > > > not why. > > > > > > > > >-- > >======================================================================== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ > 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 Sat Mar 10 20:03:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2A92Ti01586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:02:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2A924t01576 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:02:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([213.105.141.220]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010310090157.HDMT283.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:01:57 +0000 Message-ID: <002701c0a941$0eeaa140$dc8d69d5@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <000701c0a802$aa64af20$1805ff3e@vnmvhhid> <003c01c0a87e$03fe0a60$07106ecb@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT/Card prematurely led. Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:04:04 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk When I asked the question, maybe instead of saying - "is this right" - I should have said - "is this just". I do not believe that declarer now has 5 options, as others have said - it was during the auction - so she never did :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris & Mary Buckland" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT/Card prematurely led. > > Chris and Mary Buckland > Ashburton, New Zealand > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Jones" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Friday, 9 March 2001 08:04 > Subject: [BLML] OLOOT/Card prematurely led. > > > > N/S have had tortuous uncontested auction and have settled in 4S which > > will be played by South. > > East leads AC, and TD is called. Declarer South has 5 options, and tells > > the TD that the option of spreading her hand and becoming dummy is the > > one she intends to choose. TD insists on offering all options. > > Ah! but West says "I have not yet passed, does it make any difference?" > > So Law 24 applies. > > Law 24 says that declarer *may* treat every such card as a penalty card. > Presumably this means that declararer may choose not to treat AC as a > penalty card. If so, would all the options of Law 54 now apply? > Mary > > > > West must Pass - he was always going to anyway - and > > now AC is MPC and now declarer has only 3 of the 5 options.The option to > > become dummy is not one of them. > > TD rules that Law 23 does not apply. > > Does this sound right to you? > > 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/ > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 10 20:28:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2A9S3A02128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:28:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.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 f2A9Rrt02124 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:27:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from caseyk (p38-max1.oam.ihug.co.nz [203.173.238.230]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id WAA08358 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 22:27:47 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p38-max1.oam.ihug.co.nz [203.173.238.230] claimed to be caseyk Message-ID: <008e01c0a944$2c91d940$e6eeadcb@es.co.nz> From: "Bruce Kelly" To: Subject: [BLML] comments pls Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 22:26:22 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008B_01C0A9B1.2296FD40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C0A9B1.2296FD40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ..........A98 4 AQ7543 AK 6 K 10 7 2..........QJ53 K95 J63 K8 J6 QJ94 7532 .......64 AQ10872 1082 103 dealer N all vul bidding. 1D-1H- 2NT-3H- 4C-4D- 4NT after the Q C lead W got back in and assuming S had no A (from the 4D reply to gerber)leads a H,to AQ no questions were asked about the bidding E-W appealed the result because they felt they were misinformed,but = director let result(making 4) stand. was this right? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.236 / Virus Database: 114 - Release Date: 5/03/01 ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C0A9B1.2296FD40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
..........A98
          =20 4
        =20 AQ7543
         AK=20 6
K 10 7 2..........QJ53
K95          &= nbsp;     =20 J63
K8          &n= bsp;      =20 J6
QJ94          =     =20 7532
.......64
      = AQ10872
      = 1082
      =20 103
dealer N all vul
bidding.
1D-1H-
2NT-3H-
4C-4D-
4NT
after the Q C lead  W got back in = and assuming=20 S had no A
(from the 4D reply to gerber)leads a = H,to=20 AQ
no questions were asked about the=20 bidding
E-W appealed the result because they = felt they were=20 misinformed,but director
let result(making 4) = stand.
was this right?
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified = Virus=20 Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: = 6.0.236 /=20 Virus Database: 114 - Release Date: 5/03/01
------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C0A9B1.2296FD40-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 10 21:20:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AAJrV12526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:19:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AAJft12476 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:19:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-65-2.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.65.2]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA21268 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:19:07 GMT Message-ID: <001a01c0a94b$adb78220$02417bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:18:43 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "La genie n'est qu'une grande aptitude a la patience." - George-Louis De Buffon. <==--==> > > From: "Bill Bickford" > > Assume that a pair reaches 3S as a result of MI. > > Declarer, recognizing that the field will be in an > > easy 4 spades, adopts a line which would justify > > his bidding to only 3S. As a result of this > > anti-percentage play, he makes exactly 3S while > > normal play would make 4S. > > > > 1. Is this wild, irrational, or gambling? > > > 2. Is declarer expected to assume he will receive > > adjustment for the MI and not take this abnormal > < line? > +=+ Un autre appel a la genie? - au genie? If such a scenario can be achieved it looks to me like a clever, outstandingly conspicuous example of a 'double shot'. That being the case, my position is that the correct interpretation of the law, mandated by the WBF upon all its members, is that "damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. The right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action, but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')." The correct principle, I aver, is that a side is entitled to redress for damage that is the consequence of an irregularity on the part of an opponent, but not for any aggravation of that damage occasioned by the subsequent irrational, wild or gambling action of the non-offending side itself. ~ 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 Mar 11 00:01:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AD0EB01910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:00:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2ACxot01835 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 23:59:51 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2ACxel24933 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:59:40 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:59 +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: > Look, Tim, I know exactly what you are trying to do. You are > deliberately showing contempt for the Laws by trying to find little > loopholes that make difficulties for inexperienced Directors and provide > ammunition for Bridge Lawyers. You know exactly what the Law means and > that it applies in these cases. Perhaps the wording is not quite best > so an alternative way of looking at it is that you are deliberately > trying to denigrate the law-makers, who have a pretty difficult and > thankless task without your efforts. David, as someone who has repeatedly asked for people to be nice it ill behooves you to resort to untrue and offensive accusations. I thought, and continue to think that the word "inadvertently" is interpreted very differently between L17 and L25. I think this is a bad thing. For all your twisting, turning, and insinuation it is clear that you too use differing interpretations when you use these laws. Just stop and look at law 17 and see whether deleting the word would change its intent. Maybe its not that important to you - after all you know what it means. But the WBFLC interpretation for L25 is fundamental to understanding and interpreting that law (a law which is frequently misunderstood by those who have not had access to the interpretation). It is not helpful to ordinary readers if the key word is meant to be interpreted differently elsewhere. It is also wrong to criticise arguments about semantics in regard to the laws. The law in general is one place where semantics *are* important. Of course L17 isn't the biggest problem, just one that happened to catch my eye in passing. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 01:30:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AETMU25020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 01:29:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin10.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AETEt24976 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 01:29:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.54]) by mailin10.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G9ZKA600.597 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:30:06 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-240.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.240]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Peppy-MailRouter V2.9c 11/2514983); 11 Mar 2001 00:25:16 Message-ID: <016f01c0a96d$ec62c800$f0d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] comments pls Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 01:25:14 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bruce Kelly wrote: > >..........A98 > 4 > AQ7543 > AK 6 >K1072. .........QJ53 >K95 J63 >K8 J6 >QJ94 7532 >....... 64 > AQ10872 > 1082 > 103 >dealer N all vul >bidding. >1D-1H- >2NT-3H- >4C-4D- >4NT >after the Q C lead W got back in and assuming S had no Ace >(from the 4D reply to gerber) leads a H,to AQ >no questions were asked about the bidding >E-W appealed the result because they felt they were >misinformed,but director let result(making 4) stand. >was this right? Looks right to me, because when no questions are asked, 4C could mean lots of things e.g natural or a cue bid or Gerber, so there is no infraction of law. Seems to me that EW are fairly inexperienced to assume that 4C has to be Gerber. A lot of pairs play this 4C bid as not being Gerber. I am a bit confused about one thing - if 4NT was the contract, why was South playing it? It looks like North bid NT before South. I have assumed that the Sponsoring Organisation in your area has not made a specific rule that all 4C bids that are not Gerber must be alerted. That would be a very unlikely scenario. 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 Sun Mar 11 04:29:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AHSv529201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 04:28:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe72.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.207]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AHSVt29194 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 04:28:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:28:20 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.131] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <20010310080016.RMDL17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:25:26 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2001 17:28:20.0752 (UTC) FILETIME=[8079D100:01C0A987] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Burrows To: Todd Zimnoch Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 2:00 AM Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. | | > | > From: "Todd Zimnoch" | > Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:19:45 -0800 | > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au | > Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. | > | > But this thread was not (originally) about judgement. | | ... snip ... | | > | > Issues about system: | > 1.) If the pair play different algorithms with different pdfs [probability | > distribution function], are these considered different systems? (yes) Many years ago there was a story about a pair of beginners who had an auction something like this: 3S-4C 6H-7D The contract was a success but the defenders wanted to know the system. The novice replied, 'Easy, we bid what we have' and proceeded to show the 3 of spades, 4 of clubs, the 6 of hearts, and the 7 of diamonds. For a given hand bridge players know that the time to use the auction for gain quickly turns to loss. There is only so much that can be accomplished with 15 words and only a few opportunities to speak them. It therefore approaches being illogical that players seeking to maximize their score will act randomly as a part of system. To the human mind there is little that is random. They will have an objective and be influenced in their selection, even if it is to see the effect of an atypical action. The mind picks between clubs and diamonds for a reason, whether inputs to an algorithm, or the table feel that it will derail the opponents, or whatever. So, are we talking about a system where 1C and 1D will be opened artificially on a hand that does not fit 1H, 1S or 1N? Are we talking about a system where 1C and 1D will be opened to deny holdings that fit 1H, 1S or 1N where responder may frequently act as if it was artificial? For reasons above, I will suggest that using the word random to describe such an agreement is inappropriate. So, in either approach, surely the practitioners must be called to perform to a standard absent of any possible hint of unfair play. Otherwise it is too likely a CPU could be at work. Some assert that this is impossible, but for those who conduct themselves satisfactorily they ought to be entitled to use the approach regardless of its merits. roger pewick ps If you want a Random Minor instead of a Nebulous Minor you get 10 3x5 cards, or however many. Say you decide for 60% clubs and 40% diamonds- write club on six cards and diamond on four. shuffle them at the beginning of the round and when you choose to open a minor take the top card off the pile and that is the suit for the opening. This makes it clear that you are opening One Of A Minor as opposed to 1C or 1D. Or to satisfy L40, an alternative is to never open 1C; or never open 1D. | I don't see this at all. There are many partnerships in which with probability one, one player will take some action whilst in identical circumstances the other partner will take that action with probability zero. | | To me if the probability with which I open one minor (say diamonds) with a particular hand is p and partner's probability of opening the same hand 1d is q then that is a difference in judgement. | | Not to mention the fact that the algorithm may not even be part of our agreement. Which is certainly the case if both players use a different algorithm. | 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 Mar 11 05:55:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AItAV01102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 05:55:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2AIspt01029 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 05:54:52 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2AIsgR01331 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:54:42 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:54 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: John P wrote: > I've told him he can call it random minor, if and only if, he has a > post-facto method of demonstrating his choice. That is he cannot toss a > coin, as this is not reproducible, How about pre-session tossing a coin ten times and giving you an envelope with eg HHHTTHTHTT written inside (we can assume he wouldn't cheat by giving his partner the info can't we?). But to be honest I'd just ask that they alert both bids and disclose any trends they have noticed in their partner's choices. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 05:55:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AItBu01108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 05:55:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2AIspt01028 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 05:54:52 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2AIsho01340 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:54:43 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:54 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem 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: <200103091857.NAA18399@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Michael Farebrother wrote: > Oh good. Nail all the people changing system, new partnerships, and > especially pickup partnerships. What a *great* way to improve interest > in this game. My first reaction too. But then I realised that new/pickup partnerships shouldn't be unduly affected since when the explanation is "We haven't discussed this...(with whatever riders/guesses/related info is deemed appropriate)" it shouldn't be deemed either MI or Misbid. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 06:07:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJ6oQ04557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:06:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f43.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJ6bt04504 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:06:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:06:28 -0800 Received: from 172.167.230.127 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 19:06:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.167.230.127] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:06:28 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2001 19:06:28.0744 (UTC) FILETIME=[35FE1880:01C0A995] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Roger Pewick" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Wayne Burrows >| > From: "Todd Zimnoch" >| > But this thread was not (originally) about judgement. >| >| ... snip ... >| >| > >| > Issues about system: >| > 1.) If the pair play different algorithms with different pdfs >[probability >| > distribution function], are these considered different systems? (yes) > >Many years ago there was a story about a pair of beginners who had an >auction something like this: > >3S-4C >6H-7D > >The contract was a success but the defenders wanted to know the system. >The >novice replied, 'Easy, we bid what we have' and proceeded to show the 3 of >spades, 4 of clubs, the 6 of hearts, and the 7 of diamonds. > >For a given hand bridge players know that the time to use the auction for >gain quickly turns to loss. There is only so much that can be accomplished >with 15 words and only a few opportunities to speak them. It therefore >approaches being illogical that players seeking to maximize their score >will >act randomly as a part of system. There is a derivation and proof for the exact frequencies one should play a particular card from QJ-tight offside when declarer has 8 or 9 cards to the AK in that suit to maximize results. I will post this Wednesday when I've had the time to draw it up again and recheck the proof if no one cares to beat me to the punch. Similar situations can arise in bidding, but I don't know any as easy to explain as the one about card play. Acting randomly can indeed have proveable benefit. >To the human mind there is little that is >random. They will have an objective and be influenced in their selection, >even if it is to see the effect of an atypical action. The mind picks >between clubs and diamonds for a reason, whether inputs to an algorithm, or >the table feel that it will derail the opponents, or whatever. > >So, are we talking about a system where 1C and 1D will be opened >artificially on a hand that does not fit 1H, 1S or 1N? Are we talking >about >a system where 1C and 1D will be opened to deny holdings that fit 1H, 1S or >1N where responder may frequently act as if it was artificial? For reasons >above, I will suggest that using the word random to describe such an >agreement is inappropriate. You have a balanced hand, no 4 card majors, some range of points that would not open NT, 33(52), (32)(53), etc. distributions included. There is a claim that it gives the opponents more useful information than your partner to open your longest minor. Some people open one minor or the other to show tighter ranges for the NT rebid. This pair wants to open 1C or 1D in this situation with a random frequency. They'll bid one or the other, not pass, but it's a random choice which one. > >ps >If you want a Random Minor instead of a Nebulous Minor you get 10 3x5 >cards, >or however many. Say you decide for 60% clubs and 40% diamonds- write club >on six cards and diamond on four. shuffle them at the beginning of the >round and when you choose to open a minor take the top card off the pile >and >that is the suit for the opening. This makes it clear that you are opening >One Of A Minor as opposed to 1C or 1D. But the system, presumably, opens specifically the longer minor when the hand is unbalanced or when there is a spade rebid. e.g. Open 1C/D randomly on: Axx Kxx Ax Kxxxx, but open 1C always on AQxx xx Axx Kxxx and KQ xx Ax AJxxxxx. So by using this stack of index cards and bidding from that, you've created UI that you don't have an unbalanced hand. >Or to satisfy L40, an alternative is to never open 1C; or never open 1D. The 1C/1D bids are 'multiplexed'. The hand is either a real minor, unbalanced hand; or an unknown minor, balanced hand. At least, as I've understood the original question. -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 Mar 11 07:12:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKBcF15252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:11:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuit14904 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:13 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:10:24 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f298wgr26420 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:58:42 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f298PCa22587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 19:25:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from listonosz.comarch.pl (postfix@listonosz.comarch.pl [195.116.193.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f298Owt22577 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 19:25:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.sse.comarch [10.1.10.136]) by listonosz.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840E01768D for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:24:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3AA8924A.CCA2D691@comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 09:20:26 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [fr] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <007d01c0a7b9$52294a80$54d736cb@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 David Stevenson a écrit : > > > Diamond screens? > > /\ > / \ > -------------- > | / \ | > | / \ | > |/ \| > / \ > \ / > |\ /| > | \ / | > | \ / | > -------------- > \ / > \/ > > Now you can see both oppos but not pd. I guess we have been here before. Playing with diamond screens is tantamount to not using screens at all. You know the exact moment when your LHO & RHO made their bids/plays so you know how much time partner took to make his bid/play. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 07:12:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKCWE15276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:12:32 +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.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuwt14932 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:14 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:48:29 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f299mRr13674 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:48:27 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29934N23407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 20:03:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2992et23396 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 20:02:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id JAA22467; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:58:42 +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 KAA15513; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:02:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010309100454.00848e40@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 Mar 2001 10:04:54 +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 03:04 9/03/01 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010308132111.00841b90@pop.ulb.ac.be> >> AG : it does. The question is : was the infraction inadvertent ? ie, did >> the player intend to commit an infraction ? > >No. This is not the question. > >Assume playing that 5C shows 0/3 aces. A player briefly thinking that 5C >show 1/4, makes the bid, realises, and attempts to correct. Under L25 we >do not ask "How many aces were you intending to show?". Sorry. L25 speaks of making a call in lieu of another. The question to ask would be : 'did you intend to bid 5C ?' (or anything). If the answer is yes, he may not correct it. If it is no, and some other conitions are met, he may. The meaning of the bid is something else. Thus, your example doesn't falsify anything. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 07:13:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKCv315296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:12:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJudt14894 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:05 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 07:34:50 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29DPgr27362 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 07:25:42 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29Cfnu28390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:41:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29Cfat28385 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:41:37 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA24345; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:41:15 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA08211; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:41:11 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010309134350.00841100@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 Mar 2001 13:43:50 +0100 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: References: <017e01c0a7ff$cde7e640$45aa01d5@davicaltd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:44 8/03/01 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: > >Suppose you play Jacoby Transfers over 1NT, and also play 1NT-3M as >natural and forcing. (Many do, in the area I play in.) Holding >game-forcing values and a 5CM, you'll transfer if you know you want >partner to play it, bid 3M if you know you want to play it, and .... shrug >your shoulders and pick one if you can't tell which is better. Does that >situation bother you as much as random minors? AG : well, this opens up a new argument ! Look , I'm a bit of a hog, and Aex isn't. Which means my 'algorithm' to decide between 2D and 3H will not be his. However, we're still playing the same system. You see, using different algorithms is not per se disallowed. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 07:13:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKDIa15312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:13:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJv1t14939 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:28 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:14:43 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29K9Bh29908 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:09:11 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JW0f12627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:32:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29JVqt12623 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:31:53 +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 OAA19392 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:38:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103091938.OAA19392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <+XVbsuBJQ7p6EwuD@asimere.com> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <+XVbsuBJQ7p6EwuD@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:38:22 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8 March 2001 at 16:32, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >Finally - do we permit random minors? - I believe No in the UK if we're >going to open 1C on both 3352 and 3325. > >Can we use random minor with 3433 and 4333? To this I believe the >answer is Yes in the UK as the choice is not a method whose primary >objective is to disrupt opponents. The rule in the ACBL is "disrupt opponents' methods". Otherwise we get into preempts, weak jump shifts, and suchlike, which primarily disrupt the opponents... Of course, you could be more polite in the Old Country. (The difference between 3325 and 3433 is pretty much a non-issue in the ACBL, of course; under the GCC or higher 1C or 1D can be used as an artificial call of any sort provided it promises 10 HCP. From what I have been told, this was designed to specifically allow differentiation of NT hands with 1C-1x-1NT and 1D-1M-1NT. Partner's tendencies, of course, is the same problem throughout the world.) Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 07:13:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKDi415324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:13:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJvHt14957 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:33 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:45:06 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26IYCU25688 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:34:12 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26I0RU06112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:00:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26I0Kt06108 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:00:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhv3.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.227]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15614 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:00:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002701c0a667$45904920$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <01c09c49$3ced3c60$0100007f@localhost> <002f01c09c58$53b99420$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:00:03 -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 First off, welcome back David!. I hope that you are recovering from your hospital stay, and are feeling better each day. You were greatly missed in your absence. I'm delighted to see you back and posting again, as I learn a great deal from your comments and value them highly. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows > Hirsch Davis writes > > >> Bidding goes > >> > >> W N E S > >> ============= > >> <> <> <> 1N > >> 2C 2N P 3C > >> P P X P > >> 3S P 4C P > >> 4S 5C X end > > >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? > > Doubles in competitive situations in England tend not to be for > penalties. > If I ever get to play in England, I'm going to bid a LOT, particularly if opponents are going to give me the three level unmolested. I'll skip the bridge analysis, as much of it depends on the actual agreements the players had. The real question I was trying to get at was whether or not pass by W, with far more defense than his original bid promised, was an LA after the double by E. If so, would the E hesitation demonstrably suggest that pulling the double would be more successful than leaving it in? If their agreements are such that pass is not an LA, then my argument is of course immaterial. Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 07:14:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKE8B15337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:14:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJvHt14959 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:32 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:05:53 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29KC7h02996 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:12:08 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JYwc12673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:34:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JY8t12658 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:34:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:01:24 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26AoZU11942 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 04:50:35 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26AKPF17066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:20:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26AJjt17046 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:19:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-70-191.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.70.191]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09026 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:19:14 GMT Message-ID: <002001c0a627$043213e0$bf46063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: [BLML] .quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo .. (was St. P) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:18:44 -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 "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: . ------------ \x/ -------------- > > To have sensible rulings by ACs and TDs .............. > ........... terminology has to be understood. > +=+ It is part of their education that they read the definitions in the law book. In the main subscribers to blml are also 'educated', possibly from choice. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 11 07:14:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKEZd15355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:14:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuwt14931 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:24 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 07:48:01 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29DaFr05819 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 07:36:16 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29D3LE29235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:03:21 +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 f29D3Bt29222 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:03:12 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA14177; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:03:06 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Mar 09 14:06:38 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 <01K0ZUHKZRCA0047MW@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:02:02 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:56:59 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:42:37 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D8@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 > determining > the distinction between them. I argue that the correct > distinction is > the one stated in L12C2; damage which was not "likely had the > irregularity not occurred" is consequent damage; damage that was > "likely had the irregularity not occurred" is merely subsequent. > This seems wrong to me, but does not explain our different vue. Subsequent damage is never likely to occur. The description that damage not caused by (not being a result of) the previous infraction is not considered to be consequent damage, as we say it for a long time already, seems adequate to me. Let me try to say it in another way, rephrasing your description. Damage that is hardly predictable at the moment of the irregularity tends to be subsequent. > If someone illegally puts me in a position in which I make an error > (even an "egregious" error) that I could not have made had he > not acted > illegally, my error was a consequence of the illegality. With the right interpretation we might agree here. The revoke for example is subsequent now. Let us take an auction up to 4S, after which opponents using a hesitation bid 5H. Now partner decides to bid 5S. Normally spoken damage now is consequent: we would not have been in that position without the infraction. But we need the possibility to declare 5S as a crazy bid. And your description allows us to do so. It is possible that 5H has been made as a normal bid in which case the damage by bidding 5S is 100% subsequent. Do you allow me to rephrase your statement as follows ?: If someone illegally puts me in a position in which I made an error I never should have made, regardless the matter of (il)legality, my error was a subsequent one. My impression is that real life is tougher than we want the laws to be applied by introducing 'egregious'. Good players in appeal committees don't like to give good players-nonoffenders good scores after an irregularity and less well judged decisions. They are tough among themselves, is my experience. 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 Sun Mar 11 07:15:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKEvs15372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:14:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuwt14930 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:21 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 19:17:59 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f2A1CRh22037 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 19:12:27 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2A0U5C22656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:30:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2A0Tet22579 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:29:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.49.206.98] (helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14bXFw-000J89-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:29:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:27:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <200103091932.OAA19277@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200103091932.OAA19277@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200103091932.OAA19277@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, Michael Farebrother writes random minors. Actually he's got a 30-page set of system notes which he wants to put past the committee, and this is one of about 8 different things he'd like to play. I've told him he can call it random minor, if and only if, he has a post-facto method of demonstrating his choice. That is he cannot toss a coin, as this is not reproducible, and he can't read it off his watch face. It has to be something related to the condition of the board at the point he withdraws his hand and inspects the face of his cards. I have accepted I do not need to know his algorithm, just the expectancy of outcome, unless he gets challenged. ... at which point it will be my duty to protect him. > >>Come off it. It's not even a situation where >>he's worked for years on his system like Meckstroth and Rodwell to gain the >>upper hand, it's something he could concoct in five seconds. >> >So? I play one system that was concocted in about 30 seconds - the >whole system. Schenken publicised his Big Club with the title "Better >bidding in 15 minutes". >> >>What happens when he opens one diamond without spending half an hour adding >>together his spot cards, dividing the answer by three and opening a diamond >if it comes to less than fifteen, and a club if it comes to more than >>fifteen(three seconds to devise that: Eat your heart out, Matey)? Do we >>assume it's natural? I use up to 3 algorithms based on the content of my hand which give me a parity check while I'm sorting my cards. This is *not* a problem. Certainly if I hold QJ tight in a suit I know which one I will play if there's a PRC situation before I've finished sorting. It's not quite 50-50 as it happens, but that's not relevant. >> >Well, I assume that partner calls the director, says "Partner has >opened 1D with uncommon haste. This is the likely cause of it...", and >lives under his L73C requirements. Oh, and tells "Alf" to never do it >again. Or, if this doesn't happen, and John P. finds out about it, that >serious PPs fall down from the sky like rain. Quite 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/ -- 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 07:15:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKFFA15388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:15:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJvHt14958 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:31 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:58:27 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29Ekgr25015 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:46:42 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29EGtU02242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:16:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29EGdt02227 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:16:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14bNh2-000Muy-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:16:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:54:56 +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: <3.0.6.32.20010308132111.00841b90@pop.ulb.ac.be> >> AG : it does. The question is : was the infraction inadvertent ? ie, did >> the player intend to commit an infraction ? > >No. This is not the question. > >Assume playing that 5C shows 0/3 aces. A player briefly thinking that 5C >show 1/4, makes the bid, realises, and attempts to correct. Under L25 we >do not ask "How many aces were you intending to show?". No, we ask what he meant to do at the moment he did it. >> Here, did the player intend to remove his cards from the wrong board ? >> Answer : no. It is inadvertent. That's what L17 says. > >But the question "Did the player intend to remove the cards from board 5?" >gets a resounding yes. Notice in my previous example that, at the time of >removal, board 5 is not even the wrong board. So we ask whether he meant to remove the cards from the wrong board at the moment he did it. Look, Tim, I know exactly what you are trying to do. You are deliberately showing contempt for the Laws by trying to find little loopholes that make difficulties for inexperienced Directors and provide ammunition for Bridge Lawyers. You know exactly what the Law means and that it applies in these cases. Perhaps the wording is not quite best so an alternative way of looking at it is that you are deliberately trying to denigrate the law-makers, who have a pretty difficult and thankless task without your efforts. There is no ambiguity in the Law despite your attempts to find one. I suppose someone now wants to know why I am arguing with you when you know you are wrong and I know you are wrong. Simple: I worry about the other readers of BLML, the lurkers, the people with less confidence in themselves in giving rulings, who read some of the rubbish put on BLML by people who prefer semantic arguments and have no interest in furthering the game of bridge. And for them I try to debunk the awful arguments. However much you argue, I do not expect Herman or Grattan or David B or Steve W or Ton to start making silly rulings. But if one person does because of your fatuous arguments then you have done the game a disservice. If you wish to argue the wording can be improved for the next Law- book, feel free. I don't agree - there are lots of Laws that do not say what we want without worrying about the ones that do - and this Law has enough other flaws anyway. But at least you won't do any harm. But do not pretend that you believe it says something it does not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 07:15:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKFcx15406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:15:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJvHt14952 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:36 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:56:27 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29K2dh23278 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:02:40 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JPw512581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:25:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29JPmt12577 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:25:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19277 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:32:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103091932.OAA19277@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:32:19 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8 March 2001 at 17:30, "Norman Scorbie" wrote: >I said the method was dishonest, not that he was. > But not illegal, unless of course, it is :-). I don't believe it's any more dishonest than 1C "clubs or 15-17 NT", 1D "diamonds or 13-15- NT". I think avoiding the problem totally by opening all balanced ("hands I would open in NT if they were in my opening NT range", Alain) hands with 33, 43, or 44 in the minors 1C is probably easier (though it does mean that 1D is a real suit, and you're less likely to pick off their minor. OK, open all the NT but not NT hands 1D instead. Makes it harder on the opponents.) Note that there isn't anything dishonest about not opening your longest or strongest suit, systemically, no matter why you choose to do this. I do it all the time (being that I play 5cM, or course). Choosing to minimize the information passed to opponents (and partner, true) when what you really want to do is open in NT makes sense, really, though it will give you trouble when opponents interfere. >I don't believe a word of this, anyway, frankly. Are you trying to get us to >believe a)that all his opponents would be warned of this at the start of >every round, b)given time to discuss how to deal with it Yes. Especially in the EBU, where there's a "bids that may require defence" section on the *front* of the CC, right below the "general system" section that the opponents are *required* to read and know. >and c)he's not just >trying to create an ambiguous situation where he's in control and his >opponents might be at a loss? Sure he is. He's saying "partner, either I have a hand with the suit opened or a NT hand within these ranges: xxx and xxx". Nothing wrong with that at all, provided it's disclosed. This is a very common, even expected part of bidding theory. And in many cases, it's legal under SO regulations (different cases for different SOs). I'm sure that in the game being talked about (I assume JP is talking about the YC bearpit) the Multi 2D is allowed, and probably the 2S weak preempt in a minor, if not the Terrorist 2S (weak preempt in a suit) or Wilkosz 2D (5-5, not both minors). All these gain most of their benefits from freeing up other bids to help clean up their system; but certainly a significant benefit is to create an "ambiguous situation where our side is more in control". Nothing dishonest about this, unless partner is more able to clear up the ambiguity *in other ways than by subsequent calls and plays* than the opponents. >Come off it. It's not even a situation where >he's worked for years on his system like Meckstroth and Rodwell to gain the >upper hand, it's something he could concoct in five seconds. > So? I play one system that was concocted in about 30 seconds - the whole system. Schenken publicised his Big Club with the title "Better bidding in 15 minutes". > >What happens when he opens one diamond without spending half an hour adding >together his spot cards, dividing the answer by three and opening a diamond if it comes to less than fifteen, and a club if it comes to more than >fifteen(three seconds to devise that: Eat your heart out, Matey)? Do we >assume it's natural? > Well, I assume that partner calls the director, says "Partner has opened 1D with uncommon haste. This is the likely cause of it...", and lives under his L73C requirements. Oh, and tells "Alf" to never do it again. Or, if this doesn't happen, and John P. finds out about it, that serious PPs fall down from the sky like rain. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 07:16:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKG6A15425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:16:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJvHt14954 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:27 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:07:45 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29B7gr02493 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:07:42 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29ATYY11214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:29:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29AT1t11184 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:29:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:38:03 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:36:43 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f25H0VU19029 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:00:32 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25FRlY25019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:27:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f25FRMt24945 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:27:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA27677; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:23:15 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id QAA24773; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:26:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010305162923.0088a940@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 Mar 2001 16:29:23 +0100 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! 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 00:56 5/03/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > B32 -- W N E S > E/W KJT94 > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P > T98 3S P 4S X >AKJT43 Q2 AP >A83 ++ Q7652 >5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C >Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty > 98765 oriented: description later > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" > TMS A973 4Sx-1 > KJ42 > > North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as H + D. She >said everyone does so where she plays. South agreed he had probably got >it wrong. The description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". > > East-West said that: > >1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double of 3C >showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements of a double of >3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to the doubt over the meaning >of the double. >2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. >3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if he had known >that it was not one of North's suits. > > So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? AG : man bites dog. I'm along the less severe. North had the information that partner had misunderstood. If he hadn't, and if West had passed, he would have taken South's pass at its face value - I don't have any preference between H and D. That the pass is to play would be a strange agreement indeed. He would probably have taken out to 3D. So, please tell me, why should the final contract be 5C ?? If you think 3C means both 'no prefenrence' and 'club tolerance', then the final contract will be 3CX. Thus, I could understand 3CX -2 (or perhaps -3), but 5C, why, why ? when you are doubled in 3C, do you play 5C ? Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically gets a bottom and the interdiction to play the convention for the remaining of the event. It was seriously considered by Belgian authorities that Ghestem would be 'yellow', the highest degree of artificiality. It seems that Ghestem is, by far, the convention that creates the most MI and systemic errors. 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 11 07:16:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKGXM15435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:16:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJvHt14960 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:37 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:41:54 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f298Hjs22474 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:17:46 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f297RRs14022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:27:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f127.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.127]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f297R3t13954 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:27:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:26:56 -0800 Received: from 172.159.150.219 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 07:26:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.159.150.219] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:26:55 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2001 07:26:56.0043 (UTC) FILETIME=[51E66FB0:01C0A86A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Ed Reppert > >Talk to the ACBL about it, they consider it to be part of the=20 > >system. Further, if you open based on losing trick count, you must=20 > >pre-alert that here. > >Who at ACBL has said that? And here is the entire text of the=20 >regulation regarding pre-alerts. Where is the part about losing trick=20 >count? I've never once encountered a pair playing losing trick count that did not prealert. I believe it falls under either 2 or 3 below. Pre-alerting hand evaluation methods other than those based on work count or total points (or quick tricks for 2C/3NT openings) is de rigeur around where I live and play -- OR and WA. If this is not an ACBL-wide thing, I apologize, but this seems a rather sensible regulation. Card reading based on the auction can be frustrating when you don't know how the opponents decide to open or bid their hands. -Todd > >PART III: PRE-ALERTS > > > >Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning system of any=20 > >unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare.=20 > >Pre-Alerts must be given before the auction period begins on the=20 > >first board of a round. > > > > > >1. TWO-SYSTEM METHODS > > > >Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a=20 > >combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something=20 > >the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is=20 > >agreeing to play a forcing club system not vulnerable and "two over=20 > >one" vulnerable. > > > >Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall=20 > >strength by vulnerability do not require a pre-Alert. These methods=20 > >do require, when unexpected, an Announcement (notrump ranges not=20 > >within 15 to 18 HCP) or Alert (strong jump overcalls). > > > >As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system=20 > >during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of=20 > >the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time. You may,=20 > >of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents methods. > > > >2. SYSTEMS BASED ON VERY LIGHT OPENINGS OR OTHER HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE >METHODS > > > >If its your partnership style to routinely open hands with fewer=20 > >than 11 HCP, preempt with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx)=20 > >suits, and/or overcall with fewer than 6 HCP at the one level, the=20 > >opponents must be pre-Alerted. > > > >3. SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS > > > >Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems=20 > >that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include=20 > >either strong or weak no trumps with or without five-ard majors. The=20 > >forcing opening bid will most often be either a natural, strong two=20 > >bid or an artificial forcing opening of 1 or 2 . > > > >When you play a system structured along different agreements than=20 > >these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention=20 > >card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that=20 > >most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canap=E9=20 > >system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction=20 > >begins (a 10 to 12 1NT range with distributional requirements for=20 > >minor suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the=20 > >opponents. > >I'm not trying to be stroppy about this, I just can't believe you and=20 >David Grabiner have the right of it. > >Regards, > >Ed > >mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com >pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or=20 >http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 >pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 07:17:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKGuu15450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:16:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuqt14923 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:20 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:10:04 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29K4Ah24267 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:04:21 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JZ3o12678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:35:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JYDt12660 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:34:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:44:04 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26BfRA20459 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:41:28 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26B66820756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:06:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26B5ht20650 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:05:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-234.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.234]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f26B5XS21874 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:05:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 11:53:36 +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] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@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: > > > >This is important, in the light of several other rulings. > > I think we realised that, as well. > > >A pair are in 3Sp, after a misexplanation from opponents. > >They make 10 tricks. The rest of the room is in 4Sp, making > >11. > >What is the AS ? +420 or +450 ? > >Most of us would say +420. (after seeing that nothing > >special happened in the play that would not have happened in > >the game contract). > >But David's line of reasoning seems to suggest that the AS > >is and should always be +450. > > Eh? We do not look at other scores, as TDs are trained not to, so how > would we have the faintest idea what the rest of the room is doing? Well, consider "the rest of the room are in +450" as meaning "there are always 11 tricks on the hand". Shortcut ! > And > how is this relevant anyway? Whether IWoG [RoW] WoG [EBU] egregious > [ACBL] action [1] is present is a decision taken by looking at the hand > and hearing the arguments. > > [1] Just couldn't resist the acronyms game! > put them in your list ! Anyway. The idea "you must continue to play bridge" is just another way towards saying - don't try for double shots, please. I never did understand why the EBU wanted to remove the I from IWoG. Now when it seems that revokes are among what is intended, I am not certain as to whether it is a good thing that they did. After all, this is a huge step in a sideways direction. I can understand it when you are trying to be lenient towards NOs. Bad bridge is not a problem, when you are placed in a situation that you shouldn't be in. The sentence is "you should continue to play bridge", not "good bridge". But bidding 7NT after an infraction is not Wild, or even Gambling, it's plain Irrational. I always thought the three words went together, not that they were three separate classes of action, easily classified. After all, the answer to the question "would you consider 7NT wild, gambling or irrational ?" is "YES". > -- > 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/ -- 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 07:17:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJvbU14937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuDt14812 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:43 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:58:43 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29Bwgs26495 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:58:42 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29BN0W18546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:23:00 +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 (f42.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29BMqt18500 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:22:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 03:22:43 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 11:22:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 11:22:43 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2001 11:22:43.0371 (UTC) FILETIME=[425D5FB0:01C0A88B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >...snip... Me: > > What happens when he opens one diamond without spending half an hour >adding > > together his spot cards, dividing the answer by three and opening a >diamond > > if it comes to less than fifteen, and a club if it comes to more than > > fifteen(three seconds to devise that: Eat your heart out, Matey)? Do we > > assume it's natural? > > Wayne: >No it will be alerted. > Alert. "What's that?" "He bid quickly so it's a genuine suit." Are you sure? What's the time limit? Less than five seconds? Six-eight seconds if partner noticed he half-sorted his hand rather than just picking it up and noticing a lot of diamonds and bidding one diamond immediately? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 07:26:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK1Xm15054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:01:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuwt14933 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:23 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:04:43 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2974fr04763 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:04:41 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f296JfS26917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:19:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f296JXt26873 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:19:34 +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 f296GDb15052 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:16:14 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01030819451902.03157@psa836> References: <01030819451902.03157@psa836> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:10:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >However, if there are different basic hand evaluation systems, there >could be an argument that syetems are different. "Could be." Sounds an awful lot like a straw man, to me. Sorry, David, but I just don't think this is worth worrying about. If it ever happens that the argument is presented to a TD or appeals committee, then maybe, but as far as I know, that's never happened. Doesn't seem very likely, 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/AwUBOqh17r2UW3au93vOEQJE2ACg9dyVF+PMhGid9mpKTNzz7wPro9IAn0HH cbS0JHV9X52rjqFULk3D9TxN =8jrk -----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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 07:56:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJw1U14976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuOt14849 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:54 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:15:40 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29I6Tr11816 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:06:29 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29HOPu11838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:24:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29HNWt11831 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:23:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.58]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G9XXTP00.76Z for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:27:25 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-204.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.204]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Kaleidoscopic-MailRouter V2.9c 1/1973527); 10 Mar 2001 03:22:20 Message-ID: <004801c0a8bd$87f8f8e0$ccd336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:22:34 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: >It seems illogical, but then so does bidding clubs when >you have hearts and diamonds. Not really. Virtually every bridge player does that, by using Stayman. It can hardly be illogical to do something that almost all bridge players do. >Look at it this way. > >Whenever a bid is misexplained, you will be in trouble. The >TD is there to redress that balance. If you are damaged, >your redress becomes the best score you could be getting. >You are almost always better off with a redress. > >Without screens, there are some cases which solve themselves >and do not give damage. >With screens, there are more cases that turn sour and need >redress, for the exact reasons that you have given, namely >that opponents don't understand their own partner's bidding >any more. >So as non-offender, you are better off wirth screens. assuming that you value "increasing your score via Director calls" above **a game which does not turn sour**. Peter Gill. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 08:10:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AL9rc20902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 08:09:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from whale.fsr.net (root@whale.fsr.net [207.141.26.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AL9Xt20837 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 08:09:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp114.pullman.com [204.227.174.114]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA72828 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:20:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010310131222.00d2efb8@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:12:39 -0800 To: "BLML" From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] comments pls Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:26 PM 3/10/01 +1300, you wrote:=20 >>>> ..........A98Arial0606,0000,0000 size=3D2> 4 = AQ7543Arial AK = 6 K 10 7 2..........QJ53 size=3D2>K95 = J63 size=3D2>K8 J6 size=3D2>QJ94 = 7532= .......64Arial = AQ10872 1082 103= dealer N all vul bidding.= 1D-1H- 2NT-3H- 4C-4D-= 4NT after the Q C lead W got back in and assuming= S had no A (from the 4D reply to gerber)leads a H,to = AQ no questions were asked about the bidding= E-W appealed the result because they felt they were = misinformed,but director let result(making 4)= stand. was this right? =20 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.236 / Virus Database: 114 - Release Date:= 5/03/01Arial=20 Arial The bidding given would make North the declarer. So unless there was a lead out of turn E/W could simply look at the dummy (South) and see that there was an ace there. Scott -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 08:11:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK2NU15073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:02:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuot14918 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:18 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 04:27:06 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29AI0r20521 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 04:18:00 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f299o9K02238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 20:50:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from callisto.net.voyager.co.nz (callisto.net.voyager.co.nz [203.21.30.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f299not02177 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 20:49:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (ip7.net.voyager.co.nz [203.110.16.7]) by callisto.net.voyager.co.nz (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA00543 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:49:46 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <003c01c0a87e$03fe0a60$07106ecb@oemcomputer> From: "Chris & Mary Buckland" To: "BLML" References: <000701c0a802$aa64af20$1805ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT/Card prematurely led. Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:47:10 +1300 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 Chris and Mary Buckland Ashburton, New Zealand ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, 9 March 2001 08:04 Subject: [BLML] OLOOT/Card prematurely led. > N/S have had tortuous uncontested auction and have settled in 4S which > will be played by South. > East leads AC, and TD is called. Declarer South has 5 options, and tells > the TD that the option of spreading her hand and becoming dummy is the > one she intends to choose. TD insists on offering all options. > Ah! but West says "I have not yet passed, does it make any difference?" > So Law 24 applies. Law 24 says that declarer *may* treat every such card as a penalty card. Presumably this means that declararer may choose not to treat AC as a penalty card. If so, would all the options of Law 54 now apply? Mary West must Pass - he was always going to anyway - and > now AC is MPC and now declarer has only 3 of the 5 options.The option to > become dummy is not one of them. > TD rules that Law 23 does not apply. > Does this sound right to you? > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 11 08:19:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJw1614975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuKt14834 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:49 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:21:22 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29CLKs10885 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:21:20 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29Bqsd26401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:52:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29Bqdt26379 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:52:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-149.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.149]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f29BqZi17568 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:52:35 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA8A690.C780FAD5@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:46:56 +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] random minors. References: <3.0.6.32.20010308133217.007bdc70@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010308165710.0083bc40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > AG : there is *no* absolute random method. Jean-Pierre's idea, shuffling > one's cards before looking at them and (if the hand happens to be balanced > and within range) opening 1C if the 1st card picked up is higher than the > 2nd, 1D else, resolving ties by the rank of the suit, is of a very high > level of pseudo-randomness. I would certainly allow it, especially since > (surprise !) it can be easily described and partner will not be able tu > guess anything. Neither would opponents, BTW. One would also have to be > careful to describe what we call a balanced hand. > The problem with that is that it cannot be duplicated. If you have to prove to the TD that there is no single way that partner can know anything, you need to show TD that the algorithm yields diamonds or clubs, in the specific case. That can only be done using all 13 cards as input. Such a method might be called cryptic, but I fail to see why this should be disallowed if the decryption cannot be done by partner. So I vote for a : odd number of 2-3-4's in hand : clubs, even : diamonds. near enough to 50% for you ? Why would it need to be 50% BTW ? You could calculate the relative frequencies of the odd/even results and then write on your CC : with 33(43) 12-14, we open 1Di 48%, 1Cl 52% of the time, random. And you could prove that this is true as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 08:24:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK1QR15052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:01:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJv0t14938 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:10 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:01:01 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29E10s00988 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:01:00 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29DMoU29938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:22:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29DMSt29919 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:22:29 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA04073; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:22:25 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Mar 09 14:26:28 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 <01K0ZV5NX9C400479R@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:21:27 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:16:24 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:01:55 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem again! To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D9@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 > > Kooijman, A. writes > > >Do you? He could have said that a pair forgetting its > systems is punishable, > >if we agree that to be a violation of 74B1. Why did he say: > 'ought to be', > >we already have that possibility. > >He did not say, and I am not sure he meant to say that, that > the opponents > >should be entitled to redress. Law 75B explicitly tells us > not to be allowed > >to. That is why I did not and still don't agree with the > Dutch approach of > >60/40 in case of a 'Ghestem' error. > > While I am not saying that I agree it should be the > approach, I still > believe it to be legal. If you are prepared to accept the > EBU principle > under L40D that no result may be obtained through the use of > an illegal > convention, the argument for the legality of the special > Ghestem rule is > that the SO lays down that it is a condition of use of Ghestem that it > is not forgotten. Thus, if it is forgotten, it immediately becomes an > illegal convention under L40D, and the result on the board is > scrapped. > > -- > David Stevenson It sounds clever and futile, but what about 75B? In my opinion this is not the spirit of the laws. We have the same with forbidden psyches in strong conventional opening bids. Justified with the same argument: you only may use it when you don't psyche it. I have never accepted that to be within the scope and the meaning of the laws, even when Grattan tells me it is. While trying to avoid openingbids of 1NT with 8-10 by forbidding the use of conventions there after,though not sportive,is legal conform L40D. 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 Sun Mar 11 08:35:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2ALZ0826643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 08:35:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com (sm2.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2ALYpt26593 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 08:34:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:32:33 -0600 Received: from mail pickup service by sm11.texas.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 08:39:07 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:15:40 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29I6Tr11816 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:06:29 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29HOPu11838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:24:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29HNWt11831 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:23:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.58]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G9XXTP00.76Z for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:27:25 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-204.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.204]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Kaleidoscopic-MailRouter V2.9c 1/1973527); 10 Mar 2001 03:22:20 Message-ID: <004801c0a8bd$87f8f8e0$ccd336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:22:34 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: >It seems illogical, but then so does bidding clubs when >you have hearts and diamonds. Not really. Virtually every bridge player does that, by using Stayman. It can hardly be illogical to do something that almost all bridge players do. >Look at it this way. > >Whenever a bid is misexplained, you will be in trouble. The >TD is there to redress that balance. If you are damaged, >your redress becomes the best score you could be getting. >You are almost always better off with a redress. > >Without screens, there are some cases which solve themselves >and do not give damage. >With screens, there are more cases that turn sour and need >redress, for the exact reasons that you have given, namely >that opponents don't understand their own partner's bidding >any more. >So as non-offender, you are better off wirth screens. assuming that you value "increasing your score via Director calls" above **a game which does not turn sour**. Peter Gill. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 08:41:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK2h215078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:02:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuxt14935 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:25 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:14:39 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29K96h29771 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:09:07 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JZ1X12675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:35:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JY8t12659 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:34:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:00:26 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26AvnA30796 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 04:57:49 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26AKOa17065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:20:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26AJjt17047 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:19:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-70-191.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.70.191]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09001 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:19:12 GMT Message-ID: <001f01c0a627$03610840$bf46063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] St Paul's Cathedral Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 07:56:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Proper words in proper places" (Dean Swift) <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] St Paul's Cathedral > (Christopher Wren was buried in St Paul's Cathedral, > under a plain slab of stone. Its inscription was, "If you > seek my monument, look around you.") > +=+ "Si monumentum requiris, circumspice" - words placed in the Cathedral by his son. We think Sir Christopher is still there. ~ 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 08:56:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK2Qw15075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:02:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJukt14908 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:16 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:39:16 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29JXhh23648 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:33:44 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29J3wM12459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:03:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29J3ot12455 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:03:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:00:17 -0800 Message-ID: <003e01c0a8cb$a364e5e0$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <007d01c0a7b9$52294a80$54d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3AA8924A.CCA2D691@comarch.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:58:38 -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: "Konrad Ciborowski" >David Stevenson a écrit : >> > >> Diamond screens? > > /\ > / \ > -------------- > | / \ | > | / \ | > |/ \| > / \ > \ / > |\ /| > | \ / | > | \ / | > -------------- > \ / > \/ > >> Now you can see both oppos but not pd. >I guess we have been here before. Playing >with diamond screens is tantamount to not using >screens at all. The time factor is only one virtue of standard screens, not the only one. If you remember why screens originated, the inability to see one's partner was the main consideration. >You know the exact moment when >your LHO & RHO made their bids/plays so you >know how much time partner took to make his >bid/play. David's (?) excellent idea could incorporate a method to disguise each player's thinking time. If there is a way to prevent a player from knowing when RHO's time period starts, then RHO can delay acting when an opposing action seems too fast for the circumstances, or when RHO wants a bit more time hirself. A player would then not see partner's action until RHO decides to reveal it. In total effect, the time consideration would be unchanged from that of the standard screen. The mechanics of accomplishing this are a bit of a challenge. I envision a circular "lazy suzan" that carries calls from one player to another under the screens, each player perhaps having a different bidding card color. Only a bidder's LHO can move the lazy susan. The actual screen geometry should be octagonal, with each player facing a flat area rather than a vertex. The ability to get information secretly from both opponents, not possible with or without screens now, is a big plus for this concept. 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 08:59:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJwLV14985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuNt14846 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:47 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:39:10 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29Hd7r12519 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:39:07 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29H9xD11722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:09:59 +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 f29H9pt11718 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:09:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive49g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.48]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA00982; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:09:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001b01c0a8bc$bd98ce40$3011f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:16:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd you will have to back this up in some way. I certainly know of no such acbl regulations as you have imputed. Can you please cite where these regs are...on the web site of acbl perhaps, or in duplicate decisions...or in acbl score tact notes? Where areyou getting this information? Kent or Chyah (or Gary), if you are reading this can you tell us if there is really such a regulation? Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. > >From: Wayne Burrows > > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > Losing trick count, total points, and quick tricks are all other > >evaluation > > > techniques for opening a hand. In the ACBL, you cannot open based on > >HCP > > > and your partner based on losing tricks or any other mis-matched > >techniques. > > > >Well I am sorry but this is a regulation that is clearly contrary to Law 40 > >E1. In that Law the strongest possible term "must not" is applied to the > >ability of a SO's right to restrict judgement. > > > >How my partner or I evaluate our hands is the essence of judgement. > > Talk to the ACBL about it, they consider it to be part of the system. > Further, if you open based on losing trick count, you must pre-alert that > here. > > -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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 11 09:11:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJvob14963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuGt14822 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:46 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:19:25 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29CSSs16186 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:28:29 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29BqqU26399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:52:52 +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-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 f29Bqbt26375 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:52:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-149.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.149]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f29BqXi17548 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:52:33 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA8A3AD.703AB37D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:34:37 +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] Ghestem again! References: <200103072242.RAA10140@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00a101c0a764$eca3cd60$f59e7ad5@pbncomputer> <3AA774C8.F9129BFA@village.uunet.be> <000901c0a7e1$e0f35ee0$2047073e@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: > > Herman wrote: > > > > Really David, screens are an added bonus to the opponents of > > misbidders. > > I know they are, in the majority of cases. But some of the time, they > are not, because the opponents of the misbidders know less about what is > going on than they would know if the screens were not there. What is > more, each opponent "knows" something different, and does not "know" > something that his partner does "know". (I use quotation marks because, > of course, some of the data that is handed out is false; one cannot know > a falsehood.) That is what strikes me as illogical. > It seems illogical, but then so does bidding clubs when you have hearts and diamonds. Look at it this way. Whenever a bid is misexplained, you will be in trouble. The TD is there to redress that balance. If you are damaged, your redress becomes the best score you could be getting. You are almost always better off with a redress. Without screens, there are some cases which solve themselves and do not give damage. With screens, there are more cases that turn sour and need redress, for the exact reasons that you have given, namely that opponents don't understand their own partner's bidding any more. So as non-offender, you are better off wirth screens. What then is illogical in the fact that there are more boards that would lead to TD rulings ? Mind you, those are MI cases, there are far less UI cases, which is the reason for screens in the first 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/ -- 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 Sun Mar 11 09:15:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK02c15029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:00:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuat14888 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:06 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:47:55 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29Iv2s15703 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:57:03 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29IQD912215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:26:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29IPqt12208 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:25:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29BaVH03688; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:36:31 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:29:53 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01030911363101.03606@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Ed Reppert wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >Talk to the ACBL about it, they consider it to be part of the > >system. Further, if you open based on losing trick count, you must > >pre-alert that here. > > Who at ACBL has said that? And here is the entire text of the > regulation regarding pre-alerts. Where is the part about losing trick > count? > >3. SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS > >When you play a system structured along different agreements than > >these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention > >card before the round begins. It could be argued that a system based on a undamentally different method of hand evaluation requires a pre-alert. I don't think this is the case, though, because it doesn't require a fundamentally different defense. The ACBL's example of a 10-12 1NT opening, with 1C opened on 13-15 balanced and 1D opened on 16-18 balanced, does require a pre-alert because the opponents need to determine in advance whether to treat the 1C and 1D openings, often made on doubletons, as natural. But if you play a system which looks like a standard system or a big-club system except that you count points differently, I wouldn't interpret the system as being fundamentally unfamiliar to the opponents (provided that it is properly disclosed, such as a 2C opening showing 0-4 losers). My point earlier in this discussion is that if you and your partner use fundamentally different methods of hand evaluation, you are not playing the same system. If you and your partner use the same methods of hand evaluation but your partner is a Walrus and you use expert judgment, you are playing the same system with different judgement. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 09:18:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK01T15026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:00:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuYt14881 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:04 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:25:39 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f296Mih12959 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:22:44 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f295Ku513028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:20:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f295KCt12938 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:20:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt92l.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.164.85]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA02415 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:10:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <015a01c0a857$a0995b80$c2abaec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010308135832.00848100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] theory of random minors. Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:13:06 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > A score years ago, a great bridge theorist called Jean-René Vernes > discovered, based on ststistical analysis of championship deals, that rules > for deciding which minor to open on a balanced hand without a good major > (good enough to be opened in your system, whatever that means) were bad : > they gave more information to the opponents than they did to partner. > > This creates several new ideas about systems : > > 1) use 1C and 1D in a somewhat artificial sense, like opening 1C on > balanced hands when you hold a 4-card major, and 1D when you don't (playing > 5-card majors) ; or opening 1C on 11-12 or 18, and 1D on 13-14 or 19-20 > (alternatively, if you play 10-12 NT, open 1C on 13-14 or 17-18 and 1D on > 15-16 or 19-20) . > I know of players using those methods, and they seem to have success with > them. [s] > given > that choosing your minor opening according to a simple rule (like longest > minor, best in case of equal number) seems to work badly, why not suppress > any rule ? > Hello Alain, This in intruiging, if only because of Vernes's credentials as a bridge theorist. Can you give us any hints as to the method that helped him reach this conclusion? For example, how did Vernes know which pairs had rules (for choosing a minor with a balanced hand that cannot open a major or no trump) and which did not? Also, which kind of information did he find to be the worst to give out---was it relative high-card placement, relative length, or what? It seems odd, that the above examples of good new ideas under 1) are all cases of rules for deciding which minor to open on a balanced hand that cannot open a major or no trump, and therefore, by Vernes's conclusion, bad. Sounds paradoxical to me. Furthermore, without choosing your longer minor on balanced hands, pre-emptive minor suit raises are severly hampered, and I thought his law endorsed them. Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 11 09:41:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJvcK14951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuFt14818 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:45 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:45:14 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29KgIh09836 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:42:18 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29Jp7F12815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:51:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JoPt12802 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:50:26 +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 OAA18194 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:50:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA27968 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:50:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:50:19 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103091950.OAA27968@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk SW>I think a lot of problems would be solved if we required much stronger SW>evidence before ruling misbid. At the extreme, we could require a long SW>history of _correct_ usage, not just a note on the convention card. > From: Michael Farebrother > Oh good. Nail all the people changing system, new partnerships, and > especially pickup partnerships. What a *great* way to improve interest > in this game. It's better for interest in bridge that their opponents take the loss instead? > It's just > that the fixes stick in people's minds longer than the "he, he, idiot"s. Fair enough. On the other hand, where Ghestem is popular, there does seem to be a genuine problem. > Another nail in the coffin for pickup partnerships and novices. Not in my view. "Sorry, we're a pickup partnership and we haven't discussed that," is a perfectly proper explanation (if true), and always should be. What is illegal now is saying "strong" when the correct answer is the one above. The problem is enforcement. The player says, "See it says right here on our CC that it is strong." Of course his partner hasn't looked at that part of the CC, but the ruling is still misbid. > I am willing to make an exception for auctions that this player or this > pair have a *history of misbidding* This isn't an exception. Opponents are _entitled_ to know the partnership experience, not just the explicit agreements. "Our system notes say strong, but when he bid it three rounds ago, he was weak," is fine. Leaving out the last clause is an infraction. I don't think Michael and I have much disagreement on the underlying principles. At least I hope not. Where we seem to differ is on the standard of evidence needed to prove misbid rather than MI. I am not seriously advocating my "extreme" view presented above, except perhaps for very high-level events. On the other hand, just the CC (or the player's unsupported word) seems to me too weak. Michael (I gather) thinks the standard is just fine the way it is, and that is surely a reasonable opinion. Would someone like to suggest a happy compromise? Or does everyone else share Michael's view? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 11 09:53:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK2H915068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:02:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJv1t14940 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:26 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:10:07 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29B10r29047 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:01:01 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29ATNP11206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:29:23 +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.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29ASut11172 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:28:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:38:04 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:45:37 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26FjZA26177 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:45:35 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26EcJj13611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:38:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26Ec9t13565 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:38:11 +1100 (EST) Received: by XION with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:35:26 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:35:22 +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 David Stevenson wrote: >Martin Sinot writes >>alain gottcheiner wrote: >> >>>Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically gets a bottom >>>and the interdiction to play the convention for the remaining of the >>>event. >> >>This was done a few years ago, but after some heavy protests, this >>practice was discontinued. Although we very much want to punish all >>Ghestem errors, the Laws don't allow us to. We can punish misinformation >>and we can punish the use of unauthorised info, but if the offenders do >>neither, then we can only weep with the opponents. So the Dutch aren't >>"right" anymore. > > We discussed this in the EBU, and I was in a minority of one in >supporting special anti-Ghestem rules. > > But make no mistake: they are legal. Under L40D the SO has wide >powers to regulate conventions, and a regulation based on L40D such as >any error in Ghestem leads to a full board penalty or a ban from playing >it within three months of getting it wrong are perfectly legal. Of course they are legal. But no such (written) rules existed at the time they were punishing every Ghestem error. -- 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 09:54:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK2AA15067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:02:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuot14920 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:19 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:32:30 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29ENMr28651 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:23:22 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29Dvvi01456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:57:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29Dvit01446 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:57:45 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA25832; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:57:41 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Mar 09 15:01:21 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 <01K0ZWEYSHW00047CR@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:57:12 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:52:08 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:29:28 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem again! To: "'Martin Sinot'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7DB@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 was done a few years ago, but after some heavy protests, this > >>practice was discontinued. Although we very much want to punish all > >>Ghestem errors, the Laws don't allow us to. We can punish > misinformation > >>and we can punish the use of unauthorised info, but if the > offenders do > >>neither, then we can only weep with the opponents. So the > Dutch aren't > >>"right" anymore. We never were. (in my opinion, and with respect to this issue) ton > > > > We discussed this in the EBU, and I was in a minority of one in > >supporting special anti-Ghestem rules. > > > > But make no mistake: they are legal. Under L40D the SO has wide > >powers to regulate conventions, and a regulation based on > L40D such as > >any error in Ghestem leads to a full board penalty or a ban > from playing > >it within three months of getting it wrong are perfectly legal. > > Of course they are legal. (only) once more. I don't think they are legal. We need a crinky (you understand me) interpretation to get to that conclusion. My main objection has to do with redress for the non offenders, that was my subject! Penalties are not of much interest, yes we may try to discourage the play of conventions. ton But no such (written) rules existed at the > time they were punishing every Ghestem error. > > -- > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 11 09:54:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJw9114980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuSt14861 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:58 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:17:22 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29I5Yr10782 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:05:34 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29HdCm11911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:39:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29Hd5t11907 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:39:06 +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 MAA12139 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:25:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA27779 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:25:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:25:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103091725.MAA27779@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 > Tim West-meads writes > >Assume playing that 5C shows 0/3 aces. A player briefly thinking that 5C > >show 1/4, makes the bid, realises, and attempts to correct. Under L25 we > >do not ask "How many aces were you intending to show?". > From: David Stevenson > No, we ask what he meant to do at the moment he did it. Calm down a moment, David. Tim is making a reasonable point, even if it doesn't affect the way we would rule in practical cases. If you ask what the player above meant to do, you might get two answers. The player: a) meant to show one ace, and b) also meant to bid 5C. These are contradictory in the players' methods, of course, but he was confused at the moment he made the bid. Nevertheless, both a) and b) are true answers. The common interpretation is that answer b) is the one we use for rulings under L25A (and also L45C4b). > So we ask whether he meant to remove the cards from the wrong board at > the moment he did it. Here again there are two answers. The player: a) meant to remove his cards from the board to be played, and b) meant to remove his cards from board 5 (even though board 4 was about to be played). Actually, there's also answer c) in the case Tim has posed: the player meant to remove his cards from the board that was then on top of the stack. For purposes of L17, it is answer a) we use. That means in effect we ignore the 'inadvertently' in L17D. I don't see why the word is there at all. Wouldn't we make the same ruling even if we knew for sure the player had picked up the wrong hand deliberately? (Of course we would add a PP or DP and look for C&E action, but wouldn't the score adjustment be the same?) Perhaps I'm missing something, but it does seem to me that in 2007, 'inadvertently' needs to be deleted from L17D. (Grattan?) Of course in a practical ruling, we should investigate what happened. The player holding the "wrong" cards may in fact not be the one at fault, as in Tim's example. > There is no ambiguity in the Law despite your attempts to find one. On the contrary: if the normal interpretations are accepted, 'inadvertent' is used with different meanings in different Laws. I don't think that's a serious problem, but it is quite reasonable to point it out on BLML. It should be easy enough to fix in the next Laws version, so why not? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 09:56:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJwuf15006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuRt14859 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:57 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:13:29 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29B1kr29846 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:01:46 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29ATPQ11208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:29:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29ASut11174 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:28:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:38:03 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:31:44 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26BVgA15430 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:31:43 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26AsBo18557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:54:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Arxt18542 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:54:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14aF6I-000LYy-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:53:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:15:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@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 >In short, I would not rule at all until I knew what North-South's >agreement was as to the pass of 3C doubled. As to how the Director >ruled, I neither know nor care. If he knew his business, he would have >enquired the meaning of South's pass, and the information would have >been supplied to us. Since it has not been, then either: he did not ask, >in which case he is a jackass and his ruling is of no interest to me; or >he did ask, and the information has been withheld from us in order to >create a more interesting problem, in which case the problem-setter is >a... well, he is someone whom I am very glad to see back on BLML, and to >whom despite previous differences I send my very best wishes for a >speedy and complete recovery. Yes, I can see that the question should have been asked. In fact it was not, but from everything else that was told to the Director I am confident that the correct answer would have been "no agreement". -- 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 10:11:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK1ml15060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:01:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJvHt14956 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:39 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:19:08 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29KGCh08780 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:16:13 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JZ3S12677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:35:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JY8t12657 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:34:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:33:12 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26BUZA14785 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:30:36 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26AsBo18557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:54:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Arxt18542 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:54:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14aF6I-000LYy-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:53:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:15:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000c01c0a5ac$6a7feb20$c90e073e@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 >In short, I would not rule at all until I knew what North-South's >agreement was as to the pass of 3C doubled. As to how the Director >ruled, I neither know nor care. If he knew his business, he would have >enquired the meaning of South's pass, and the information would have >been supplied to us. Since it has not been, then either: he did not ask, >in which case he is a jackass and his ruling is of no interest to me; or >he did ask, and the information has been withheld from us in order to >create a more interesting problem, in which case the problem-setter is >a... well, he is someone whom I am very glad to see back on BLML, and to >whom despite previous differences I send my very best wishes for a >speedy and complete recovery. Yes, I can see that the question should have been asked. In fact it was not, but from everything else that was told to the Director I am confident that the correct answer would have been "no agreement". -- 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 10:26:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJw1p14973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuNt14844 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:53 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:12:42 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29BA4s18694 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:10:04 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29ATWH11212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:29:33 +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.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29ASut11171 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:28:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:38:04 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 07:37:32 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26DTGU11817 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 07:29:16 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26CbC115251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:37:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Cait15158 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:36:46 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA27577; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:36:25 +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 NAA02678; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:36:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010306133855.00807e70@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 Mar 2001 13:38:55 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f26Camt15174 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:53 5/03/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >I can understand it when you are trying to be lenient >towards NOs. Bad bridge is not a problem, when you are >placed in a situation that you shouldn't be in. The >sentence is "you should continue to play bridge", not "good >bridge". AG : I couldn't agree any more. Making an inferior bid is bridge. Bridge is a game of errors. No smilie here. This means that there is less difference between ACBL and RotW (1) formulations than it seems at first sight. For a bid or card not to be bridge, the degree of error should be considerable. Verging on the irrational. This is also why I didn't like to split hairs and the damage (2) in the case of the UI-then-revoke that we handled some days ago. Revoking is -alas- part of bridge ; it is not a wild or gambling action, mainly because it isn't intentional ; it is not irrational, because rationality means acting well according to the context, irrationality means acting wrongly according to the context, and a revoke it out-of-context. Something like a koân. (1) No, RotW does not mean 'rolling on the walls'. Would be pretty difficult. (2) I love zeugmata. Best 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 11 10:26:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2ANQVp05100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:26:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2ANQNt05093 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:26:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010310223010.URLM17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]>; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:30:10 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: David J Grabiner CC: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 22:30:53 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010310223010.URLM17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: David J Grabiner > Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:29:53 +0000 > To: Ed Reppert , > Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. > ...snip... > > My point earlier in this discussion is that if you and your partner use > fundamentally different methods of hand evaluation, you are not playing > the same system. If you and your partner use the same methods of hand > evaluation but your partner is a Walrus and you use expert judgment, > you are playing the same system with different judgement. > What is hand evaulation but judgement. I treat: I 'judge' this hand to be worth an opening bid; and I 'counted my schmoints' (or whatever) and got to 13 so I opened the bidding; to be synonomous statements. Law 40E1 says that a regulation that forces partners to play the same system *must not* restrict judgement and style. To me this plainly says that such a regulation can not force my partner and I to use the same method of hand evaluation (judgement). > -- > 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. > 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 Mar 11 10:29:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJvo614967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuUt14868 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:00 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:24:01 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29CCHr26699 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:12:17 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29Bqt326403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:52:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29Bqat26373 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:52:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-149.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.149]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f29BqUi17538 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:52:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA8A1B7.185C2DC@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:26:15 +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] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010305084150.00b6cb80@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010307083422.00ab9ee0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010308083731.00b6b830@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 05:55 AM 3/8/01, Herman wrote: > > >So a declarer who revokes in one contract does not suffer, > >while one who is in a different contract does ? > >Hardly seems fair to me ! > > It's not a matter of what contract they're in; it's a matter of what > contract they would have been in absent the irregularity. Well, the contract they should be in is a constant. It's something directed by the cards and the systems and judgment of the players. The contract they are actually in is not constant. It depends on the particularity of the infraction, and it is exactly this infraction that we are trying to get rid of. So when the contract should be 4Sp, but it is 3Sp, everything in the play matters. But when the contract is 2Di by opponents, nothing more matters. That is what I mean with not fair. When they are in the same strain, they must play bridge, but when they are not, they are suddenly allowed to revoke. > L12C2 > directs us to determine "the most favorable result that was likely had > the irregularity not occurred". If it's not "likely" that there would > have been no revoke absent the irregularity, then the revoke was not a > consequence of the irregularity, and it stands. We shall never be in a position where it turns out to be likely that someone would revoke. It is no more or less likely that someone would have revoked in 4Sp, given that they revoked in 3Sp, 2Di or not at all. > If, OTOH, it occurred > in a position that could only have occurred given the irregularity, we > should not assume that some other revoke in some completely different > position was any more likely than it would have been had there not been > a revoke in the contract that resulted from the irregularity, and we > adjust the score on that basis. > A revoke has nothing whatsoever to do with the strain we are in. Apart from becoming dummy, a player is always exactly as likely to revoke as at any other time. > >I agree with the "suboptimal play" case, mainly because we > >would adjust in L12C3 to an average - so there is no escape > >to a supraoptimal play. > >But the revoke ? Either we make player suffer for his > >revoke in all cases, or in neither, but not according to the > >strain of the table contract, that is not fair. > > We make the player suffer for a revoke that they would (at some > sufficiently high level of probability, i.e. that level at which their > not revoking is not considered "likely") have committed had there been > no infraction, and not make them suffer for a revoke that they would > not (ditto) have committed had there been no infraction. Sounds fair > to me. > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -- 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 Sun Mar 11 10:35:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJvoB14965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuEt14814 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:41 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:09:58 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29KGDh08783 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:16:13 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JZRR12685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:35:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JYxt12676 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:35:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:48:04 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26FjRA25976 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:45:28 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26EnLe16225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:49:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26EnAt16178 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:49:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id PAA09871; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:45:14 +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 PAA23866; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:48:46 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010306155121.0082ed10@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 Mar 2001 15:51:21 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@127.0.0.1> References: <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:10 6/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 12:03 AM 3/6/01, Jerry wrote: > >>So "need to know" is a bad criterion for asking. It seems to me the advice >>to bridge players should be: >> >>1. As you said, do not ask for partner's benefit if you understand what is >>going on. >>2. Do *not* ask _only_ when you need to know. That passes UI to >>partner and >>needless benefit to opps. Instead ask systematically or randomly. > >I consider myself an ethical player (admittedly, doesn't everyone?), >but my habit is not to ask every time, to ask randomly, nor to ask only >when I need to know the answer. I ask whenever I don't know the answer >and don't find it on my opponent's CC, and keep my mouth shut when I do. > >Is that inappropriate? AG : to the contrary, it's very good on principle. But most of the exponents of this theory apply it imperfectly, that is, if they have no interest in knowing, they don't check the CC, thus don't ask. This sometimes gives away UI. If you do otherwise, if you really ask every time you don't know, that's perfect. >As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know >what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect >your own calls? AG : not really. However, if I acted that way, I'd feel necessary to tell the opponents, as a pre-alert, 'we often ask just to know'. Meaning, don't try and take inferences from our interest (which they are, remember, allowed to do). 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 11 10:35:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2ANZ8b05282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:35:08 +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.satx.rr.com (sm2.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2ANYbt05266 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:34:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 17:34:10 -0600 Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:05:47 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:11:53 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26H9GA13974 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:09:17 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26G5Ft19721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:05:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26G4ht19717 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:04:45 +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 f26G1Ub02740 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:01:31 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> References: <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:59:29 -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 11:03 PM -0600 3/5/01, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >So "need to know" is a bad criterion for asking. It seems to me the advice >to bridge players should be: > >1. As you said, do not ask for partner's benefit if you understand what is >going on. >2. Do *not* ask _only_ when you need to know. That passes UI to partner and >needless benefit to opps. Instead ask systematically or randomly. >3. When there is clear evidence of MI, call the director immediately. > >Is this right world-wide, or is it, perhaps, only an ACBL peculiarity? It occurs to me to wonder whether, if I don't ask because I know what it means, and I expect partner does not, what are the chances I'll later get an adverse ruling - and conversely, if I *do* ask when I don't need to know, what are those chances? (I am still trying to teach partner that when she doesn't know, *she* should ask, but she hates to do that. Well, not entirely - she used to *never* ask; now she does at least some of the time.) 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/AwUBOqUKlb2UW3au93vOEQL3LgCdFbm+sFm3PdSKAsYjEPL+lEwKrnwAoKdv 1Hq5pdq9czstqwsKMlb3w1wa =/GX5 -----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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 10:35:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2ANZDU05284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:35:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com (sm2.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2ANYet05270 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:34:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 17:34:26 -0600 Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:05:53 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au ([150.203.20.9]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:39:22 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f273cbi00172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:38:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f273cSt00127 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:38:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaughr.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.66.59]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA25771 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:38:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00be01c0a6b8$0c30ec60$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3A964564.547FFD94@village.uunet.be> <000a01c09def$7f8f0d80$0200000a@mindspring.com> <874FMXGAjpo6Ewl9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:38:16 -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: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? > Hirsch Davis writes > DWS: > > Why might a player do so? Because he thinks he might as well take his > twelve, and not risk two off. Or [and the present case sounds like this > to me] he just wants to get the hand over with as quickly as possible, > because he does not have the stomach for playing grands off an ace. He > is going to ream his pd out anyway. > > We know what sort of player he is because of his claim. Are you > suggesting that if he had not claimed he would have done anything but > grab the opening lead and play a spade? I think not. > Yep. I'm suggesting that he added up all of his tricks, came up with 12 (he doesn't believe in bad breaks), and would have run off his cards in order believing he would run out of gas at the end. If he managed to unblock the clubs, he'd make. If there had been any indication that he intended to take a spade trick, or if there was a bridge reason to play a spade at trick two on that particular layout, I'd rule the other way. I don't think I can (or should) rule that the player makes an irrational play based on his presumed state of mind. If we open that door, we're going to see some truly bizarre claim rulings. Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 10:37:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK1Dg15049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:01:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuet14896 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:09 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:24:30 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f297Cor26859 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:12:50 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f296TXf29192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:29:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f296TNt29149 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:29:24 +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 f296QNm08846 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:26:24 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:19:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Talk to the ACBL about it, they consider it to be part of the=20 >system. Further, if you open based on losing trick count, you must=20 >pre-alert that here. Who at ACBL has said that? And here is the entire text of the=20 regulation regarding pre-alerts. Where is the part about losing trick=20 count? >PART III: PRE-ALERTS > >Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning system of any=20 >unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare.=20 >Pre-Alerts must be given before the auction period begins on the=20 >first board of a round. > > >1. TWO-SYSTEM METHODS > >Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a=20 >combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something=20 >the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is=20 >agreeing to play a forcing club system not vulnerable and "two over=20 >one" vulnerable. > >Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall=20 >strength by vulnerability do not require a pre-Alert. These methods=20 >do require, when unexpected, an Announcement (notrump ranges not=20 >within 15 to 18 HCP) or Alert (strong jump overcalls). > >As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system=20 >during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of=20 >the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time. You may,=20 >of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents methods. > >2. SYSTEMS BASED ON VERY LIGHT OPENINGS OR OTHER HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE METHODS > >If its your partnership style to routinely open hands with fewer=20 >than 11 HCP, preempt with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx)=20 >suits, and/or overcall with fewer than 6 HCP at the one level, the=20 >opponents must be pre-Alerted. > >3. SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS > >Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems=20 >that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include=20 >either strong or weak no trumps with or without five-ard majors. The=20 >forcing opening bid will most often be either a natural, strong two=20 >bid or an artificial forcing opening of 1 or 2 . > >When you play a system structured along different agreements than=20 >these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention=20 >card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that=20 >most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canap=E9=20 >system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction=20 >begins (a 10 to 12 1NT range with distributional requirements for=20 >minor suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the=20 >opponents. I'm not trying to be stroppy about this, I just can't believe you and=20 David Grabiner have the right of it. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or=20 http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOqh4Pr2UW3au93vOEQKR+wCgw7vIgZUj+GgJCMkBxuFCxzEc9dkAoPN+ 95EOPc/KyVVAeP4usFlIEjpP =+Fno -----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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 10:41:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJxhH15021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:59:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuYt14880 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:03 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:28:55 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29MZCh18984 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:35:12 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29M9gF23989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:09:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29M9Xt23985 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 09:09:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4qm.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.86]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA29164 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:09:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002901c0a8e5$cd36c630$5613f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010309153005.00b74420@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:10:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is so eminently sensible I am amazed that anyone would disagree. Attempts to impose some artificial measure of hand quality such as Work/Goren points for the trained judgement of a bridge player flies in the face of developing expertise through study and experience. The essence of bridge is that we can improve our games by working at it. Take that away and we might as well play tic tac toe. Therefore couching laws AND regulations in such terms as "a king below average strength" should be commended, and banning an opening with "less that 10 HCP" should be condemned. Tell me that you should pass AKQxxxxxxxxx - - x! Even a novice can find the spade slam. Points are a useful tool in hand evaluation; I find that honour tricks are also, and any sane measure of distributional and positional values is to be embraced as well. If you can find me one expert who will insist that rigid application of 4-3-2-1 HCP evaluation will make for better bidding, I will wonder what strange thinks he has been smoking or sniffing or imbibing. Let's not throw the baby (bridge) out with the bath of "full disclosure." Bridge is and always will be a game of judgement. Let us be thankful for that and eschew all attempts to forbid us exercising our judgement using all authorized information available to us and all legitimate means of evaluating that information at our disposal. Well said, Eric. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" "if you and your partner use > different methods of hand evaluation that lead to a significant > difference in actions taken with similar hands, you are not playing the > same system". If in one case I count Goren points and "use expert > judgment" while my partner counts Goren points and is a Walrus, while > in another case I count losing tricks and use expert judgment while my > partner counts Goren points and is a Walrus, but we each make the same > bids in either case, we either are or are not playing the same system > depending on how often our bids differ; how we got to those bids just > doesn't matter. > > The contrary view leads to a "slippery slope" dilemma. If we call HCP > and LTC "fundamentally different" (and believe that it matters), then > what about HCP+LTC and LTC alone? What about HCP+LTC and HCP+"expert > judgement"? When I pick up a hand I might bid on, I count HCP, Goren > points, losers and quick tricks. If they overwhelmingly suggest a > particular call I make it. If they disagree, I may go on to count by > Kaplan points, adjusted LTC, and who knows what else. My partner may > do much the same, except he's never heard of LTC, so he applies his > version of "judgment" by throwing in Stayman points, which I don't > know. Are our methods of evaluation "fundamentally different"? Is > there really a practical difference between "expert judgment" and > merely knowing lots of different ways to evaluate a hand? If partner > will open a particular 12 HCP hand that I won't, I don't see how it > should matter whether my reason for passing the hand is that it has > seven losers, or that it has only 1-1/2 QT, or that my "expert > judgment" tells me it's not an opening bid. Whether this means we're > playing different systems can only be a matter of how often it happens, > not why. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 11 10:44:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJvoN14968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuWt14876 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:55 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 15:38:12 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29LWeh15367 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 15:32:40 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29KoRI13908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 07:50:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29Knet13894 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 07:49:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:39:19 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f25Gw9U16767 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:58:09 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f25FRlY25019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:27:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f25FRMt24945 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:27:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA27677; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:23:15 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id QAA24773; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:26:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010305162923.0088a940@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 Mar 2001 16:29:23 +0100 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! 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 00:56 5/03/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > B32 -- W N E S > E/W KJT94 > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P > T98 3S P 4S X >AKJT43 Q2 AP >A83 ++ Q7652 >5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C >Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty > 98765 oriented: description later > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" > TMS A973 4Sx-1 > KJ42 > > North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as H + D. She >said everyone does so where she plays. South agreed he had probably got >it wrong. The description on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". > > East-West said that: > >1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double of 3C >showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements of a double of >3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to the doubt over the meaning >of the double. >2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. >3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if he had known >that it was not one of North's suits. > > So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? AG : man bites dog. I'm along the less severe. North had the information that partner had misunderstood. If he hadn't, and if West had passed, he would have taken South's pass at its face value - I don't have any preference between H and D. That the pass is to play would be a strange agreement indeed. He would probably have taken out to 3D. So, please tell me, why should the final contract be 5C ?? If you think 3C means both 'no prefenrence' and 'club tolerance', then the final contract will be 3CX. Thus, I could understand 3CX -2 (or perhaps -3), but 5C, why, why ? when you are doubled in 3C, do you play 5C ? Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically gets a bottom and the interdiction to play the convention for the remaining of the event. It was seriously considered by Belgian authorities that Ghestem would be 'yellow', the highest degree of artificiality. It seems that Ghestem is, by far, the convention that creates the most MI and systemic errors. 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 11 10:46:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2ANkQf05526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:46:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2ANk9t05522 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:46:10 +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 14bt3k-000ETN-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 23:46:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 23:44:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. 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: >John P wrote: > >> I've told him he can call it random minor, if and only if, he has a >> post-facto method of demonstrating his choice. That is he cannot toss a >> coin, as this is not reproducible, > >How about pre-session tossing a coin ten times and giving you an envelope >with eg HHHTTHTHTT written inside (we can assume he wouldn't cheat by >giving his partner the info can't we?). But to be honest I'd just ask >that they alert both bids and disclose any trends they have noticed in >their partner's choices. I have concluded that, given one may open 1C to show a balanced hand, or clubs OB12.2.2c, and that you can open 1D to show a balanced hand or diamonds OB12.2.3c, and that the system is no more bizarre than a 1D opener on Kxx Qxx xx AKxxx or Kxx Qxx AKxxx xx (playing precision), and further given the work of Vernes who suggests that showing relative minor length is not necessarily advantageous, then: 1) the system is not one primarily designed to disrupt opponents and is not in contravention of OB 9.1.4 2) the method is legal at level 2 3) the choice of opening must be such that there is no reasonable way that partner can detect a bias, the method must be kept secret, and must be based on data which is reproducible (eg hand records, sealed envelopes), and the relative frequency must be given to partner. 4) Each player in the partnership is responsible for selecting and keeping secret his own method for choosing the minor to open. 5) the alert should be explained along the lines of: "Natural, or balanced. If balanced then irrespective of length in the minors, partner selects 1C or 1D with a [stated] frequency" 6) psyching the choice is strongly frowned on, as it *could* lead to a cpu, which would be nearly undetectable. I may be in disagreement with standard EBU TD training. john thank you all for your contributions - I have found the discussion very interesting > >Tim -- 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 Sun Mar 11 10:56:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJwZ114996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuXt14878 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:01 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:31:12 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29IVAs16739 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:31:11 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29I19u12062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:01:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29I0nt12054 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:00:50 +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 SAA18143 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:00:39 GMT Message-ID: <3AA91A67.CD6457E3@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 19:01:11 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] theory of random minors. References: <3.0.6.32.20010308135832.00848100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <015a01c0a857$a0995b80$c2abaec7@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman a écrit : > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > A score years ago, a great bridge theorist called Jean-René Vernes > > discovered, based on ststistical analysis of championship deals, that > rules > > for deciding which minor to open on a balanced hand without a good major > > (good enough to be opened in your system, whatever that means) were bad : > > they gave more information to the opponents than they did to partner. > > > > This creates several new ideas about systems : > > > > 1) use 1C and 1D in a somewhat artificial sense, like opening 1C on > > balanced hands when you hold a 4-card major, and 1D when you don't > (playing > > 5-card majors) ; or opening 1C on 11-12 or 18, and 1D on 13-14 or 19-20 > > (alternatively, if you play 10-12 NT, open 1C on 13-14 or 17-18 and 1D on > > 15-16 or 19-20) . > > I know of players using those methods, and they seem to have success with > > them. > > [s] > > > given > > that choosing your minor opening according to a simple rule (like longest > > minor, best in case of equal number) seems to work badly, why not suppress > > any rule ? > > > > Hello Alain, > > This in intruiging, if only because of Vernes's credentials as a bridge > theorist. Can you give us any hints as to the method that helped him reach > this conclusion? For example, how did Vernes know which pairs had rules (for > choosing a minor with a balanced hand that cannot open a major or no trump) > and which did not? Also, which kind of information did he find to be the > worst to give out---was it relative high-card placement, relative length, or > what? > > It seems odd, that the above examples of good new ideas under 1) are all > cases of rules for deciding which minor to open on a balanced hand that > cannot open a major or no trump, and therefore, by Vernes's conclusion, bad. > Sounds paradoxical to me. > > Furthermore, without choosing your longer minor on balanced hands, > pre-emptive minor suit raises are severly hampered, and I thought his law > endorsed them. > > Jerry Fusselman the conclusions vernes drew (in early seventies) from analysis of world championship deals was that it was counterproductive to waste 2 opening bids (especially 1C and 1D the more valuable ones) only to decribe minors lengths (as long as i remember he didn't consider the choice of which minor to open with balanced hands). When he then elaborated his own system (Majeure d'Abord), he brought his ideas into operation by using only one opening bid (1D) for minors (long clubs, long diamonds, minor 2-suiters or balanced hands without 4 hearts or 4 spades) and by using the 1C opening for an entirely different purpose (hands with 4 spades, either balanced or with some other longer suit). No randomisation in this system but nowadays, there is a debate between french experts of natural bidding, about usefulness and legality to use some or other criterion to open the longer, shorter, stronger or weaker minor with balanced hands. JP Rocafort > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 11:20:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJxev15018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:59:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuct14892 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:07 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:37:44 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f2A0WCh05499 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:32:12 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29NwRq16732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:58:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29NwEt16681 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:58:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-81-4.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.81.4]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA08473; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:57:41 GMT Message-ID: <003101c0a8f4$dd11ed00$0451063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7D9@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:57:39 -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 "La genie n'est qu'une grande aptitude a la patience." - George-Louis De Buffon. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'David Stevenson' ; Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 1:01 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem again! > > > > > Kooijman, A. writes > ------------------- \x/ ----------------- > It sounds clever and futile, but what about 75B? In > my opinion this is not the spirit of the laws. We have > the same with forbidden psyches in strong conventional > opening bids. Justified with the same argument: you > only may use it when you don't psyche it. I have never > accepted that to be within the scope and the meaning > of the laws, even when Grattan tells me it is. While > trying to avoid openingbids of 1NT with 8-10 by > forbidding the use of conventions thereafter,though > not sportive,is legal conform L40D. > > ton > +=+ :-)) Ahaaa!! I am summoned to appear! It seems questionable to me that one may speak of the 'spirit of the laws'. Are not these the rules which define the game and by which it must be played? There is surely a spirit in which the game should be played, but as for the laws I believe these have not a spirit but an intention which is specified by the words of the laws and by the meanings attributed to them by the World Bridge Federation as the ultimate authority. I have not sought to 'tell' what is within the 'scope and meaning of the laws' so much as to report past deliberations. With regard to the power to prohibit the psyche of a conventional opening bid, as I have previously stated I was asked by the EBL (in 1984/5?) to ascertain from Edgar Kaplan whether a regulation with this effect was legal; he replied the power to regulate conventions was unrestricted so that such a regulation was legal. (The EBL already had the regulation in place for some years and was not mortified to have this assurance.) However, the matter did not rest there, in early drafts for the 1987 laws the drafting committee brought forward a proposal to insert words in Law 40 that would disallow any prohibition of psyching a convention. My notes of WBFLC meetings in Sao Paulo contain the following record: "" (i) General principle of construction of Law 40: it was agreed that section 40A states the general principle and that the subsequent sections are limitations upon the applications of that principle. (ii)(a) faced with the fact that the ACBL and the EBL both forbid, in pairs events, the psyche of an artificial/conventional opening bid it was agreed that the laws must bend to countenance this. It may be done under Section 40D. (b) .................. etc. "" [You may be amused to know that there was a man with two heads there who informed the WBFLC (a) that the English Bridge Union was in favour of the drafting committee's suggestion, and (b) that the European Bridge League was opposed to it. Pour la enieme fois le 'coup de la Manche'!] Two further pieces of intelligence: (A) some of the regulations in question refer to any artificial opening bid, not only strong ones; the last occasion of a violation that I recall involved a psyche of a Multi 2D. (B) the most recent sighting of such a regulation is in the Rules and Regulations for the European Open Pairs Championship, Sorrento, March 19-24, 2001. Having served, the Genie returns to the lamp. Ever, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 11:21:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK24A15064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:02:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuft14898 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:11 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:26:48 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29JO9s01287 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:24:10 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29IpO212381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:51:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f29Ip9t12376 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 05:51:10 +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 NAA18399 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:57:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103091857.NAA18399@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200103090017.TAA20342@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200103090017.TAA20342@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:57:37 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The last time I remember this topic coming up, I wrote http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/archives/ bridge-laws.9810/Author/article-742.html (sorry about the wrapping). The arguments still hold, and I'm still as adamant about the footnote being correct as I was 2.5 years ago. I'll try to not cover the same points again. P.S. Markus, would it be possible/easy to put in a search feature into the archive? Or a pull-by-author on a less granular basis than one month? P.P.S. Thanks again, Markus, for all the work you do for this - and you don't seem to get anything out of it yourself. On 8 March 2001 at 19:17, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "David Burn" >> Received wisdom (and, indeed, the current Laws) holds that it is not in >> itself an infraction to forget your side's methods. There are >> circumstances in which you can do this "without penalty", > >I think a lot of problems would be solved if we required much stronger >evidence before ruling misbid. At the extreme, we could require a long >history of _correct_ usage, not just a note on the convention card. Oh good. Nail all the people changing system, new partnerships, and especially pickup partnerships. What a *great* way to improve interest in this game. Ok, so that's an extreme view. I don't agree with it, as you might see, and I don't think you want to go that far, either (but others have suggested the like in all seriousness). I don't think "misbids that work", frustrating to the opponents as they are, need to be legislated out of the game. (with one exception, see below). I have misbid, violently, three times this year. Each time we got a bad result (ok, one was good, but worse than it would have been without my misbid). I don't think the bridge world needs to be protected any more than they are against "misbids that work", given their already strong positive expectation (naturally, and legally) against misbids. It's just that the fixes stick in people's minds longer than the "he, he, idiot"s. >That way psychs and _rare_ misbids would not be considered infractions, >but both frequent misbids and failure to have clear agreements would be >treated as MI. > Another nail in the coffin for pickup partnerships and novices. A CoC in the World/National championships; ok. A regulation that enforces this for pairs *who have to submit their system in advance*; sure. In general? No. No. Please, no. Frequent misbids? If you can come up with a liberal definition of "frequent", ok, maybe I'll go with that. >Reasonable people will no doubt differ in their opinions of just how >far we ought to go in this direction, but I think the present "accept >any statement of a misbid at face value" approach is too weak. But it isn't "any statement"; it's "evidence to the contrary". And, as I said in 1998, I strongly disagree with attempts to strengthen this criterion. >In David >B.'s case ("strong" 2H that turned out to be weak), the prior mistake in >the same session (!) strongly suggests MI. I have sympathy. I would put to the opponents the "make your system, tell me what it is; and remember it, please. Further 'mistakes' will be penalized under L74B1 (and possibly L72B1, too). But I don't think there's redress, nor do I think there should be. I am willing to make an exception for auctions that this player or this pair have a *history of misbidding* - note, not "not a history of getting right"; examples like 1NT-2D "transfer or diamonds", 1NT "we're playing 12-14, but he often forgets", or (1NT)-2C "'Landy' or clubs" - so common, supposedly, that Anderson's book on Lebensohl suggests playing Leb. for clubs over 2C Landy. Oh, and anyone that caters for it should get violently introduced to L73C and L40D and E (not that they do). Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 11:24:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK2CX15069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:02:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJvHt14955 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:30 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:10:57 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29B1or29973 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 05:01:51 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29ATNw11205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:29:23 +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.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29ASut11173 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:28:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 00:38:03 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:42:27 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26BgQA20980 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:42:27 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26B66820756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:06:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26B5ht20650 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:05:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-234.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.234]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f26B5XS21874 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:05:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 11:53:36 +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] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@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: > > > >This is important, in the light of several other rulings. > > I think we realised that, as well. > > >A pair are in 3Sp, after a misexplanation from opponents. > >They make 10 tricks. The rest of the room is in 4Sp, making > >11. > >What is the AS ? +420 or +450 ? > >Most of us would say +420. (after seeing that nothing > >special happened in the play that would not have happened in > >the game contract). > >But David's line of reasoning seems to suggest that the AS > >is and should always be +450. > > Eh? We do not look at other scores, as TDs are trained not to, so how > would we have the faintest idea what the rest of the room is doing? Well, consider "the rest of the room are in +450" as meaning "there are always 11 tricks on the hand". Shortcut ! > And > how is this relevant anyway? Whether IWoG [RoW] WoG [EBU] egregious > [ACBL] action [1] is present is a decision taken by looking at the hand > and hearing the arguments. > > [1] Just couldn't resist the acronyms game! > put them in your list ! Anyway. The idea "you must continue to play bridge" is just another way towards saying - don't try for double shots, please. I never did understand why the EBU wanted to remove the I from IWoG. Now when it seems that revokes are among what is intended, I am not certain as to whether it is a good thing that they did. After all, this is a huge step in a sideways direction. I can understand it when you are trying to be lenient towards NOs. Bad bridge is not a problem, when you are placed in a situation that you shouldn't be in. The sentence is "you should continue to play bridge", not "good bridge". But bidding 7NT after an infraction is not Wild, or even Gambling, it's plain Irrational. I always thought the three words went together, not that they were three separate classes of action, easily classified. After all, the answer to the question "would you consider 7NT wild, gambling or irrational ?" is "YES". > -- > 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/ -- 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 11:26:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJvo714969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuLt14837 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:51 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:54:17 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29HsGs07627 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:54:16 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29HHGm11775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:17:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin10.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29HHAt11771 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:17:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.58]) by mailin10.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G9XXKH00.966 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:21:53 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-204.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.204]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-All-Encompassing-MailRouter V2.9c 1/1972486); 10 Mar 2001 03:16:48 Message-ID: <003901c0a8bc$c25d8240$ccd336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:17:02 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> B32 -- W N E S >> E/W KJT94 >> D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P >> T98 3S P 4S X >>AKJT43 Q2 AP >>A83 ++ Q7652 >>5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C >>Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty >> 98765 oriented: description later >> K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" >> TMS A973 4Sx-1 >> KJ42 >> >> North says there is no question but that she plays 3C as >> H + D. She said everyone does so where she plays. >> South agreed he had probably got it wrong. The description >> on both CCs was the single word "Ghestem". >> >> East-West said that: >> >>1. While they had some doubt as to the meaning of a double >> of 3C showing H+C they were quite certain of their agreements >> of a double of 3C showing H+D so the misinformation led to >> the doubt over the meaning of the double. >>2. North has UI and might have led a club otherwise. >>3. West would have been more confident of passing 3Cx if >> he had known that it was not one of North's suits. >> >> So, how would you rule? How did the Director rule? > >AG : man bites dog. I'm along the less severe. > >North had the information that partner had misunderstood. >If he hadn't, and if West had passed, he would have taken >South's pass at its face value - I don't have any preference >between H and D. That the pass is to play would be a strange >agreement indeed. Why? Just because you personally don't play it that way? On a gain/loss balance sheet, the "natural" meaning of the Pass is probably more useful than your proposal, because a Ghestem bidder is so often exactly 5-5 that it's usually easy to give preference to 3D or 3H, whereas there's only one way to reach 3C if that is the best contract. >He would probably have taken out to 3D. So, please tell me, >why should the final contract be 5C ?? David didn't suggested 5C as a contract - it was I who suggested that. Since you ask, here's why... South passes 3C doubled. This may suggest to North that South holds long clubs. See Comment #3 by EW in DWS's summary above. This comment clearly implies that with the correct info, both Pass AND 3S by West are now possible calls. thus we have to track the developments after both Pass and 3S by West. If West passes, 3CX becomes the final contract. If West bids 3S, North may bid 5C or may bid 4C or may Pass depending on how convinced she is that South has long clubs for the Pass of 3CX. 5C is a real possibility so, in the absence of L12C3 for the Director, my ruling as a Director is based on 5CX (the most unfavourable result that was at all probable). So that's where 5C came from. Does it make any sense to you? >If you think 3C means both 'no preference' and 'club tolerance', >then the final contract will be 3CX. Thus, I could understand >3CX -2 (or perhaps -3), but 5C, why, why ? when you are >doubled in 3C, do you play 5C ? because you are not doubled in 3C, your opponents are in 3S which is a possibility which they specifically referred to in their written submission above - so we cannot really disregard it. >Perhaps the Dutch are right : a Ghestem error automatically >gets a bottom and the interdiction to play the convention for >the remaining of the event. >It was seriously considered by Belgian authorities that >Ghestem would be 'yellow', the highest degree of artificiality. >It seems that Ghestem is, by far, the convention that creates >the most MI and systemic errors. I had never heard of this anti-Ghestem stuff when I gave my rather esoteric ruling of 5C doubled down lots. I did state in my previous post that I expected an appeal against such a ruling. Part of the point of my ruling is that I live in a region where ACs but not Tds can use L12C3. My ruling placed the onus to appeal on the Offending side. Perhaps the ruling (minus 1400) was a bit extreme. A sidetrack follows: Ghestem is virtually unknown in Australia. In the last five years I have only come across Ghestem once. That was in the recent Quarter-Finals of our National Open Teams, when a lowly ranked Aussie team playing Ghestem upset our team. I felt a bit better when they beat Balicki-Zmudzinski in their Semi-Final, although they did lose to the Italian World Champions in the Grand Final. Not a bad effort - the only Aussies who bother to play Ghestem are the team who prevent a downunder replay of the Maastricht Olympiad Grand Final. Peter Gill Sydney, Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 11:38:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK24x15063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:02:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJumt14914 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:17 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 19:02:01 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f2A0uPh05012 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:56:25 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2A0KXe20202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:20:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f118.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2A0Jst20115 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:19:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:19:46 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:19:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:19:45 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2001 00:19:46.0231 (UTC) FILETIME=[CFC13C70:01C0A8F7] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk But this thread was not (originally) about judgement. You don't run a function to generate a random result, decide in your better judgement that you don't like it, and then run different ones until you get a result you like. That's not random. There can be no judgement involved in producing a random bid. So what about the original question in this thread? A pair play "random balanced minors". Is this legal? (My thoughts in parens.) Issues about randomness: 1.) Is it necessary that the random function be unbiased in its result? (no) 2.) Can you use external variables, i.e. # of letters in LHO's name? (yes) 3.) Can the function for generating your random number be cryptographically strong? (yes) 4.) Must the function ... cryptographically strong? (no) 5.) Can the generator be stochastic [including some random, non-reproduceable event as input, e.g. order of cards before you sorted, TD in line-of-sight when it's your turn to bid, etc.]? (yes) 6.) Must the generator be stochastic? (no) Issues about system: 1.) If the pair play different algorithms with different pdfs [probability distribution function], are these considered different systems? (yes) 2.) If the pair play different algorithms with the same pdf, is this considered playing different systems? (yes) 3.) If the pair play different algorithms with the same results, is this considered playing different systems? (no) Other issues about legality: 1.) If you decide to play different algorithms, can you reveal yours to your partner? 2.) Must you disclose your algorithm to opponents if they ask? (probably dependent on the answer to 1, above, but certainly yes if you've revealed it to partner.) 3.) Must you disclose your pdf to the opponents? (Yes. Partner, if ever paying attention, can reconstruct this from his experience, but apparently ignorance is bliss?) "Eric Landau" > > If partner will open a particular 12 HCP hand that I won't, I don't > > see how it should matter whether my reason for passing the hand is > > that it has seven losers, or that it has only 1-1/2 QT, or that > > my "expert judgment" tells me it's not an opening bid. Whether this > > means we're playing different systems can only be a matter of how > > often it happens, not why. If an equivalence relation existed between two systems, I'd agree (I don't find that one exists between rule of 20 and LTC), but as far as measuring error between them it might not be a matter of how often, but how jarringly. If you disagree about 2 hands out of a hundred (and agree about the 5 further below), but those 2 hands are: Qxxxxx Kxxxx Ax - AQ AQ AQ xxxxxxx is that more or less "the same system" as disagreeing about these 5 hands out of 100 being: Axxx Axx Axx Jxx AKx Axx xxx Jxxx KQx Kxx Qx Kxxxx QJx QJx QJx QJxx K Kxxx Kxxx KJxx and agreeing about the 2 futher above? -Todd >From: "Craig Senior" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. >Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:10:49 -0500 > >This is so eminently sensible I am amazed that anyone would >disagree. Attempts to impose some artificial measure of hand >quality such as Work/Goren points for the trained judgement of a >bridge player flies in the face of developing expertise through >study and experience. The essence of bridge is that we can >improve our games by working at it. Take that away and we might >as well play tic tac toe. > >Therefore couching laws AND regulations in such terms as "a king >below average strength" should be commended, and banning an >opening with "less that 10 HCP" should be condemned. Tell me >that you should pass AKQxxxxxxxxx - - x! Even a novice can find >the spade slam. Points are a useful tool in hand evaluation; I >find that honour tricks are also, and any sane measure of >distributional and positional values is to be embraced as well. > > If you can find me one expert who will insist that rigid >application of 4-3-2-1 HCP evaluation will make for better >bidding, I will wonder what strange thinks he has been smoking >or sniffing or imbibing. Let's not throw the baby (bridge) out >with the bath of "full disclosure." Bridge is and always will be >a game of judgement. Let us be thankful for that and eschew all >attempts to forbid us exercising our judgement using all >authorized information available to us and all legitimate means >of evaluating that information at our disposal. Well said, Eric. > >Craig > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > "if you and your partner use > > different methods of hand evaluation that lead to a >significant > > difference in actions taken with similar hands, you are not >playing the > > same system". If in one case I count Goren points and "use >expert > > judgment" while my partner counts Goren points and is a >Walrus, while > > in another case I count losing tricks and use expert judgment >while my > > partner counts Goren points and is a Walrus, but we each make >the same > > bids in either case, we either are or are not playing the same >system > > depending on how often our bids differ; how we got to those >bids just > > doesn't matter. > > > > The contrary view leads to a "slippery slope" dilemma. If we >call HCP > > and LTC "fundamentally different" (and believe that it >matters), then > > what about HCP+LTC and LTC alone? What about HCP+LTC and >HCP+"expert > > judgement"? When I pick up a hand I might bid on, I count >HCP, Goren > > points, losers and quick tricks. If they overwhelmingly >suggest a > > particular call I make it. If they disagree, I may go on to >count by > > Kaplan points, adjusted LTC, and who knows what else. My >partner may > > do much the same, except he's never heard of LTC, so he >applies his > > version of "judgment" by throwing in Stayman points, which I >don't > > know. Are our methods of evaluation "fundamentally >different"? Is > > there really a practical difference between "expert judgment" >and > > merely knowing lots of different ways to evaluate a hand? If >partner > > will open a particular 12 HCP hand that I won't, I don't see >how it > > should matter whether my reason for passing the hand is that >it has > > seven losers, or that it has only 1-1/2 QT, or that my "expert > > judgment" tells me it's not an opening bid. Whether this >means we're > > playing different systems can only be a matter of how often it >happens, > > not why. > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 12:12:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2B1BsL08250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:11:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2B1BYt08238 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:11:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010311011128.VJSX17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]>; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:11:28 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "John "MadDog" Probst" CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 1:12:12 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010311011128.VJSX17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi John > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 23:44:39 +0000 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > I have concluded that, given one may open 1C to show a balanced hand, or > clubs OB12.2.2c, and that you can open 1D to show a balanced hand or > diamonds OB12.2.3c, and that the system is no more bizarre than a 1D > opener on Kxx Qxx xx AKxxx or Kxx Qxx AKxxx xx (playing precision), and > further given the work of Vernes who suggests that showing relative > minor length is not necessarily advantageous, then: > > 1) the system is not one primarily designed to disrupt opponents and is > not in contravention of OB 9.1.4 > 2) the method is legal at level 2 > 3) the choice of opening must be such that there is no reasonable way > that partner can detect a bias, the method must be kept secret, and must > be based on data which is reproducible (eg hand records, sealed > envelopes), and the relative frequency must be given to partner. I agree with and understand most of this but why we require or desire reproducibility I do not understand. Nor do I understand why partner needs to know frequencies. This type of ruling would effectively restrict casual partnerships. e.g. "Lets play weak NT", "ok" would not be sufficient discussion. We would have to continue "I pass 12 counts with x% frequency etc". > 4) Each player in the partnership is responsible for selecting and > keeping secret his own method for choosing the minor to open. > 5) the alert should be explained along the lines of: "Natural, or > balanced. If balanced then irrespective of length in the minors, > partner selects 1C or 1D with a [stated] frequency" > 6) psyching the choice is strongly frowned on, as it *could* lead to a > cpu, which would be nearly undetectable. > I don't see how this makes psyching "to be frowned upon". In any case it is hardly a gross distortion if I open the other minor - so therefore not a psyche. > I may be in disagreement with standard EBU TD training. > > john > > thank you all for your contributions - I have found the discussion very > interesting > > > >Tim > -- > 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 > -- > 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 Mar 11 12:30:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2B1UPX08930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:30:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2B1UIt08920 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:30:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010311013014.VMYQ17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:30:14 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 1:30:59 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010311013014.VMYQ17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks All I received much good feedback on this subject - both to the list and privately. I have now purchased some braille cards from the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind. They have two sorts available - Bridge Size and Poker Size (Bicycle Cards). The bridge size cards are poorer quality but I think that the Braille is better laid out for a learner. I delivered the cards yesterday - so hopefully we will have one more active bridge player returning to our community. Rumour has it that the person involved was going down to the regular duplicate and just sitting in the room for the company while she has been unable to play. > > From: David Stevenson > Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 01:28:18 +0000 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes > > Brian Baresch writes > >>>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. > > I have played a few times with braille cards: they definitely are > available. > > > -- > 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/ > 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 Mar 11 13:26:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2B2PvO19805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:25:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2B2Plt19759 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:25:48 +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 VAA25902 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:25:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA13870 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:25:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:25:42 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103110225.VAA13870@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] BLML mail loop problem Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A mailer at texas.rr.com is bouncing BLML posts back to the lists. I have notified Markus, but he may not be able to act immediately. In the meantime, 1) if anyone recognizes himself as the culprit, please fix your email forwarding. 2) I suggest we all minimize our postings until the problem is fixed. (I was reluctant to post this but finally decided it is worthwhile. I won't be posting again.) Bounced posts can be recognized by multiple copies of the BLML ".sig" (5 lines at end of message). I haven't seen anything that would allow one to recognize them from the subject line, alas. Fortunately, there appears to be quite a bit of time delay before the reposts, so we haven't reached catastrophe yet. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 14:38:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2B3c5k24882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:38:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2B3bot24808 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:37:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:28:13 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:11:53 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26H9GA13974 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:09:17 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26G5Ft19721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:05:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26G4ht19717 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:04:45 +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 f26G1Ub02740 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:01:31 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> References: <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:59:29 -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 11:03 PM -0600 3/5/01, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >So "need to know" is a bad criterion for asking. It seems to me the advice >to bridge players should be: > >1. As you said, do not ask for partner's benefit if you understand what is >going on. >2. Do *not* ask _only_ when you need to know. That passes UI to partner and >needless benefit to opps. Instead ask systematically or randomly. >3. When there is clear evidence of MI, call the director immediately. > >Is this right world-wide, or is it, perhaps, only an ACBL peculiarity? It occurs to me to wonder whether, if I don't ask because I know what it means, and I expect partner does not, what are the chances I'll later get an adverse ruling - and conversely, if I *do* ask when I don't need to know, what are those chances? (I am still trying to teach partner that when she doesn't know, *she* should ask, but she hates to do that. Well, not entirely - she used to *never* ask; now she does at least some of the time.) 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/AwUBOqUKlb2UW3au93vOEQL3LgCdFbm+sFm3PdSKAsYjEPL+lEwKrnwAoKdv 1Hq5pdq9czstqwsKMlb3w1wa =/GX5 -----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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 14:38:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2B3cCr24917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:38:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2B3btt24840 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:37:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:28:19 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au ([150.203.20.9]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:39:22 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f273cbi00172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:38:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f273cSt00127 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:38:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaughr.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.66.59]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA25771 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:38:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00be01c0a6b8$0c30ec60$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3A964564.547FFD94@village.uunet.be> <000a01c09def$7f8f0d80$0200000a@mindspring.com> <874FMXGAjpo6Ewl9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:38:16 -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: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? > Hirsch Davis writes > DWS: > > Why might a player do so? Because he thinks he might as well take his > twelve, and not risk two off. Or [and the present case sounds like this > to me] he just wants to get the hand over with as quickly as possible, > because he does not have the stomach for playing grands off an ace. He > is going to ream his pd out anyway. > > We know what sort of player he is because of his claim. Are you > suggesting that if he had not claimed he would have done anything but > grab the opening lead and play a spade? I think not. > Yep. I'm suggesting that he added up all of his tricks, came up with 12 (he doesn't believe in bad breaks), and would have run off his cards in order believing he would run out of gas at the end. If he managed to unblock the clubs, he'd make. If there had been any indication that he intended to take a spade trick, or if there was a bridge reason to play a spade at trick two on that particular layout, I'd rule the other way. I don't think I can (or should) rule that the player makes an irrational play based on his presumed state of mind. If we open that door, we're going to see some truly bizarre claim rulings. Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 21:15:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BAEuv20055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:14:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2BAEjt19998 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:14:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-96.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.96]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2BAEfi07624 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:14:41 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAA0DB0.C05B15E7@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:19:12 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Ghestem again References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > RHO opens 1suit. > > 2NT shows two lowest unbid suits > 3C shows the two other unbid suits > 2suit shows the outside unbid suits > > exception for 1C. > 2D shows the two other unbid suits > 3C, rather than 2C (alterable by agreement?), shows outside unbid suits > "Modern Ghestem" also has the same on 1Di : 2Di is majors 2NT = Cl + He 3Cl = Cl + Sp That is the version Ghestem himself played. > It's meant for strong hands intending to buy the auction, even if it's a > sac. > > -Todd > > >From: "Robert E. Harris" > >To: > >Subject: [BLML] Re: Ghestem again > >Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:12:35 -0600 > > > >Would someone please explain what the usual Ghestem is? > >Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 > >Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia > >Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 > >-- > >======================================================================== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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/ -- 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 Mar 11 21:15:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BAEr220038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:14:53 +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.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2BAEft19973 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:14:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-96.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.96]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2BAEai07613 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:14:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAA09D4.E8896153@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:02:44 +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] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au><4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> <038401c0a903$abb5fa80$17a0bbd1@gw.totalweb.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bill Bickford wrote: > > I'd like to raise a point that occurs to me re the wild, irrational, or > gambling test after MI (this may have been raised before but I do not recall > it being addressed) > It has, and it has been touched upon a few times in this thread, but it is worth repeating. > Assume that a pair reaches 3S as a result of MI. Declarer, recognizing that > the field will be in an easy 4 spades, adopts a line which would justify his > bidding to only 3S. As a result of this anti-percentage play, he makes > exactly 3S while normal play would make 4S. > > 1. Is this wild, irrational, or gambling? > absolutely not. > 2. Is declarer expected to assume he will receive adjustment for the MI and > not take this abnormal line? > Of course he will. In many a post of Eric's and mine we have stated this as an exception. The principle is widely understood. > Cheers..................../Bill Bickford > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 11:29 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking > > > Herman De Wael writes > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >> And > > >> how is this relevant anyway? Whether IWoG [RoW] WoG [EBU] egregious > > >> [ACBL] action [1] is present is a decision taken by looking at the hand > > >> and hearing the arguments. > > >> > > >> [1] Just couldn't resist the acronyms game! > > > > >put them in your list ! > > > > > >Anyway. > > > > > >The idea "you must continue to play bridge" is just another > > >way towards saying - don't try for double shots, please. > > > > No, it isn't. It came from the ACBL, and for some years they have > > been denying redress when NOs make mistakes even where there cannot be > > any chance of the double shot. > > > > >I never did understand why the EBU wanted to remove the I > > >from IWoG. > > > > Same argument: we are interested in stopping the double shot. > > Irrational acts are not attempts at the double shot. > > > > >Now when it seems that revokes are among what is intended, I > > >am not certain as to whether it is a good thing that they > > >did. > > >After all, this is a huge step in a sideways direction. > > > > Are you suggesting that players revoke as an attempt to get a double > > shot? > > > > >I can understand it when you are trying to be lenient > > >towards NOs. Bad bridge is not a problem, when you are > > >placed in a situation that you shouldn't be in. The > > >sentence is "you should continue to play bridge", not "good > > >bridge". > > >But bidding 7NT after an infraction is not Wild, or even > > >Gambling, it's plain Irrational. > > >I always thought the three words went together, not that > > >they were three separate classes of action, easily > > >classified. > > > > Why? We say "irrational, wild *or* gambling", not *and*. > > > > >After all, the answer to the question "would you consider > > >7NT wild, gambling or irrational ?" is "YES". > > > > As you like. But since different authorities use different standards, > > others will use their own standard. Why not? > > > > ------ > > > > The original idea for split scores came from denying people the double > > shot. England feels they would like to follow the original view: the > > ACBL feels that kindness to NOs is not necessary if they make any > > sizeable mistake: the RoW is some way in-between. > > > > -- > > 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/ -- 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 Mar 11 21:15:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BAEm620012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:14:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2BAEbt19949 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:14:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-96.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.96]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2BAEWi07604 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:14:33 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAA094A.83031CDD@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:00:26 +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] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@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 never did understand why the EBU wanted to remove the I > >from IWoG. > > Same argument: we are interested in stopping the double shot. > Irrational acts are not attempts at the double shot. > OK, granted, > >Now when it seems that revokes are among what is intended, I > >am not certain as to whether it is a good thing that they > >did. > >After all, this is a huge step in a sideways direction. > > Are you suggesting that players revoke as an attempt to get a double > shot? > No I am not, but you seem so certain that all we need to do is to eliminate is the possibility of the double shot. I don't agree with that premise. What is so wrong with also denying redress for self inflicted damage ? > >I can understand it when you are trying to be lenient > >towards NOs. Bad bridge is not a problem, when you are > >placed in a situation that you shouldn't be in. The > >sentence is "you should continue to play bridge", not "good > >bridge". > >But bidding 7NT after an infraction is not Wild, or even > >Gambling, it's plain Irrational. > >I always thought the three words went together, not that > >they were three separate classes of action, easily > >classified. > > Why? We say "irrational, wild *or* gambling", not *and*. > Yes, but can you classify what a particular action is ? Gambling or Wild ? Many actions will be both. Some actions will be clearly one of them, but we have no definitions as to whether they are wild or gambling. Nor do we need them. Of course there is an "or" in there. With an "and" the definition would be unworkable. > >After all, the answer to the question "would you consider > >7NT wild, gambling or irrational ?" is "YES". > > As you like. But since different authorities use different standards, > others will use their own standard. Why not? > Because I already hate it when the ACBL and the EBL don't agree, but when a ruling becomes different in the EBU and VBL, I don't like that. BTW, did the Scottish BU follow suit ? Does the EBU really want to go it alone in as important an issue as this one ? And I don't mean the scrapping of a word, I mean the handling of a revoke after an irregularity. > ------ > > The original idea for split scores came from denying people the double > shot. England feels they would like to follow the original view: the > ACBL feels that kindness to NOs is not necessary if they make any > sizeable mistake: the RoW is some way in-between. > I still find it hard to accept that someone who revokes gets away with it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 11 21:34:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BAY4M26719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:34:04 +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 (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2BAXut26682 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:33:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-56-58.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.56.58]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA17333; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:32:45 GMT Message-ID: <000401c0aa16$c1807e80$3a387bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "David J Grabiner" Cc: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20010310223010.URLM17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:26:49 -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 " Such laboured nothings in so strange a style Amaze th' unlearn'd, and make the learned smile," ~ Alexander Pope. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Burrows To: David J Grabiner Cc: Ed Reppert ; Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 10:30 PM Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > Law 40E1 says that a regulation that forces > partners to play the same system *must not* > restrict judgement and style. > > To me this plainly says that such a regulation > can not force my partner and I to use the same > method of hand evaluation (judgement). > +=+ Law 40E actually says that what regulation may restrict is 'method'. A regulation may require that the meaning of a call shall be the same whichever of the two partners makes the call. The subsequent action of a player shall not then treat partner's call as having a different meaning than it would have when he made it himself. Judgement and style have to do with deviations made ad hoc; if 'judgement' is regularly based upon a different method of hand evaluation which the player is aware his partner uses, it becomes an implicit agreement as to method, must be disclosed and is subject to regulation. ~ 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 Mar 11 22:07:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BB6sj08328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:06:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sm10.texas.rr.com (sm10.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2BB6mt08294 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:06:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from satx.rr.com (cs160153-181.satx.rr.com [24.160.153.181]) by sm10.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2BAv4L18282; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 04:57:04 -0600 Message-ID: <3AAB5C90.456A614E@satx.rr.com> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 05:08:00 -0600 From: Albert W Lochli Reply-To: biigal@satx.rr.com Organization: Internet Coordinator ACBL D-16 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: "San Antonio, Linux Users Group" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: [BLML] BLML mail loop problem References: <200103110225.VAA13870@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: > > A mailer at texas.rr.com is bouncing BLML posts back to the lists. I have > notified Markus, but he may not be able to act immediately. In the meantime, > snipped rest The MTA (mail transport agency) at satx.rr.com was misconfigured during an upgrade -- for five days problems existed. The problem has been corrected -- however it is now clearing the system for all the queued messages -- including some that repeat and repeat (30 + times). There is nothing that can be done except use your delete key and toss them. (I belong to several mail lists and am receiving packets and packets of them.) The problem is self solving. When the pipes are cleared there will be no more. Enjoy. It is estimated that there are 36-48 hours to clear them all out and they may already have cleared. Adding more messages in re this only adds to the problem. -- 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 Sun Mar 11 22:08:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BB8IL08794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:08:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2BB89t08754 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:08:10 +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 14c3he-0005B4-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:08:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:14:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Ghestem 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 Robert E. Harris writes >Would someone please explain what the usual Ghestem is? There is no "usual" Ghestem, which is part of the trouble. Ghestem is a convention by which you show a specific two-suiter when RHO opens. It is generally [but not exclusively] shown by 2NT, a cue- bid, or 3C. Most people play that 2NT is the lower two unbid suits. Some people play that 3C is the extreme two suits and a cue-bid is the higher-ranking two-suits. Some people play the reverse of that. Other complications are: some people play 2D over 1C as a two-suiter instead of 2C which becomes natural. Some people play 3D over 1D instead of 3C which becomes natural. Some people play 2NT as the majors over a minor opening, and change one of the other pairings to the lowest two unbid suits. And then the player that has agreed to play one of these things picks up a club suit and bids 3C before he remembers it is Ghestem. Strangely enough, he remembers at the very moment when his partner alerts. -- 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 Mar 11 22:08:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BB8LU08806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:08:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2BB89t08753 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:08:09 +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 14c3he-0005B3-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:08:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:07:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability References: <200103091725.MAA27779@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200103091725.MAA27779@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 >On the contrary: if the normal interpretations are accepted, >'inadvertent' is used with different meanings in different Laws. I >don't think that's a serious problem, but it is quite reasonable to >point it out on BLML. It should be easy enough to fix in the next >Laws version, so why not? Just tell me what the point is in this sort of argument? We were not discussing how to change it in the next version. I really cannot see why every time someone asks a question we completely avoid answering it by saying what we will do in the future - and that's only if the lawmakers agree with us. According to Tim in the position that everyone uses L17D we are not allowed to do so *currently*. Nothing whatever to do with some time in the future. There is no point whatever talking about some ethereal non-existent Law book whenever someone wants to nitpick the present one. We still want occasionally to answer questions here, don't we? Or is that no longer allowed? I do not think Tim is making any useful point at all when he says that in the normal case of someone taking the cards out of the wrong board we cannot use L17D because he wants some other clever definition of inadvertent apart from "He did not mean to". And I do not think you are helping one iota by saying that the Law book will be perfect in the year 2865. It is today that we want an interpretation, not then. Or perhaps the aim is not to provide a current interpretation but merely to criticise the lawmakers. I think you should have more sympathy for their job. All this stuff that seems so easy to some people out there is not, especially when you are not going to get agreement very easily whenever there is the least change. Now, Steve, one more time, according to Tim you may not use L17D when a player takes the cards from the wrong board because he did not do so inadvertently. Do you agree with him? Do you think his interpretation is helpful for the game of bridge? -- 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 Mar 12 06:03:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BJ2Yq00179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 06:02:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from backup.san.rr.com (backup.san.rr.com [24.25.193.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2BJ2Rt00140 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 06:02:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by backup.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:02:29 -0800 Message-ID: <004501c0aa5d$c6534400$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20010310223010.URLM17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> <000401c0aa16$c1807e80$3a387bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:01:56 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > From: Wayne Burrows > > > > Law 40E1 says that a regulation that forces > > partners to play the same system *must not* > > restrict judgement and style. > > > > To me this plainly says that such a regulation > > can not force my partner and I to use the same > > method of hand evaluation (judgement). > > > +=+ Law 40E actually says that what regulation > may restrict is 'method'. A regulation may require > that the meaning of a call shall be the same > whichever of the two partners makes the call. The > subsequent action of a player shall not then treat > partner's call as having a different meaning than > it would have when he made it himself. Judgement > and style have to do with deviations made ad hoc; > if 'judgement' is regularly based upon a different > method of hand evaluation which the player is > aware his partner uses, it becomes an implicit > agreement as to method, must be disclosed > and is subject to regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I think it was pointed out by Goren that one player using point count and another using honor count are not in disagreement as to what every bid means in terms of strength. Each evaluation method is an estimate of strength, not a true measure of strength. It is a matter of judgment, not of meaning. Goren's (?) comment explained that the oft-heard (in those days) "Do you use point count?" was a silly question to ask a partner. A point counter and an honor counter can play together harmoniously without knowing what evaluation method the other is using, since it doesn't matter. That they sometimes come up with slightly different opinions as to the strength of a hand does not mean that they have different strength standards for bids. Point counters wanted 13 HCP to open a hand with no suit longer than four cards, and an honor counter wanted 3 HC. The number of such hands opened by each did not differ appreciably, although each would open some hands not opened by the other. Since one partner cannot make use of the information that the other uses one method or the other for hand evaluation, there is nothing to disclose. If one or the other method consistently and significantly comes up with either more aggressive or more conservative answers in estimating the strength of a hand, that would be different. A method doing that would not become popular, however. It is possible that disclosure might be important for play purposes, but disclosure of individual style and judgment can only go so far, and that would be going too far. Of much greater importance is the tendency of one partner or the other to be consistently more aggressive or more conservative than the other in bidding. I don't notice any call for disclosure of such a style difference. 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 Mar 12 06:18:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BJHxn05582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 06:17:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2BJHrt05554 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 06:17:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010311191930.ZNRY3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]>; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:19:30 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Marvin L. French" CC: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:17:49 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010311191930.ZNRY3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Marvin L. French" > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:01:56 -0800 > To: "Bridge Laws" > Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > From: Wayne Burrows > > > > > > > Law 40E1 says that a regulation that forces > > > partners to play the same system *must not* > > > restrict judgement and style. > > > > > > To me this plainly says that such a regulation > > > can not force my partner and I to use the same > > > method of hand evaluation (judgement). > > > > > +=+ Law 40E actually says that what regulation > > may restrict is 'method'. A regulation may require > > that the meaning of a call shall be the same > > whichever of the two partners makes the call. The > > subsequent action of a player shall not then treat > > partner's call as having a different meaning than > > it would have when he made it himself. Judgement > > and style have to do with deviations made ad hoc; > > if 'judgement' is regularly based upon a different > > method of hand evaluation which the player is > > aware his partner uses, it becomes an implicit > > agreement as to method, must be disclosed > > and is subject to regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > I think it was pointed out by Goren that one player using point count and > another using honor count are not in disagreement as to what every bid > means in terms of strength. Each evaluation method is an estimate of > strength, not a true measure of strength. It is a matter of judgment, not > of meaning. This makes sense to me. I just cannot see that using a different evaluation method is a different system. > > Goren's (?) comment explained that the oft-heard (in those days) "Do you > use point count?" was a silly question to ask a partner. A point counter > and an honor counter can play together harmoniously without knowing what > evaluation method the other is using, since it doesn't matter. That they > sometimes come up with slightly different opinions as to the strength of a > hand does not mean that they have different strength standards for bids. > Point counters wanted 13 HCP to open a hand with no suit longer than four > cards, and an honor counter wanted 3 HC. The number of such hands opened > by each did not differ appreciably, although each would open some hands > not opened by the other. Ron Klinger uses a similar arguement in his book on the losing trick count - one can use this evaluation (judgement) technique even if partner has never heard of the term. > > Since one partner cannot make use of the information that the other uses > one method or the other for hand evaluation, there is nothing to disclose. > If one or the other method consistently and significantly comes up with > either more aggressive or more conservative answers in estimating the > strength of a hand, that would be different. A method doing that would not > become popular, however. > > It is possible that disclosure might be important for play purposes, but > disclosure of individual style and judgment can only go so far, and that > would be going too far. One needs only disclose agreement and experience not method of judgement (hand evaluation). e.g. We agreed 12-14 nt (agreement) but partner is very conservative (experience). > > Of much greater importance is the tendency of one partner or the other to > be consistently more aggressive or more conservative than the other in > bidding. I don't notice any call for disclosure of such a style > difference. > > 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/ > 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 Mon Mar 12 06:32:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BJWMM10631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 06:32:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2BJWGt10601 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 06:32:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010311193353.ZSGF3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]>; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:33:53 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Grattan Endicott" CC: "Wayne Burrows" , "David J Grabiner" , "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:32:12 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010311193353.ZSGF3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:26:49 -0000 > To: "Wayne Burrows" , > "David J Grabiner" > CC: "Ed Reppert" , > "Bridge Laws" > Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > > Law 40E1 says that a regulation that forces > > partners to play the same system *must not* > > restrict judgement and style. > > > > To me this plainly says that such a regulation > > can not force my partner and I to use the same > > method of hand evaluation (judgement). > > > +=+ Law 40E actually says that what regulation > may restrict is 'method'. And that it *must not* restrict style and judgement. >A regulation may require > that the meaning of a call shall be the same > whichever of the two partners makes the call. The > subsequent action of a player shall not then treat > partner's call as having a different meaning than > it would have when he made it himself. Judgement > and style have to do with deviations made ad hoc; > if 'judgement' is regularly based upon a different > method of hand evaluation which the player is > aware his partner uses, it becomes an implicit > agreement as to method, L75 recognizes that habitual deviations *may* become implicit agreements. Therefore it is not necessary that an implicit agreement is formed from such variations. If I do not agree with my partner's evaluations and judgements they will never be an agreement implicit or otherwise. L40 states in the strongest possible terms that the regulation must not restrict judgement and you are explicitly argueing that such a restriction is invalid. I cannot see that your interpretation is anyway consistent with that Law. > must be disclosed > and is subject to regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > 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 Mon Mar 12 07:55:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BKt2x17733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2BKsot17717 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:54:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:45:00 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:18:59 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2B06n211390 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:06:50 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK1Dg15049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:01:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuet14896 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:09 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:24:30 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f297Cor26859 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:12:50 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f296TXf29192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:29:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f296TNt29149 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 17:29:24 +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 f296QNm08846 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:26:24 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 01:19:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Talk to the ACBL about it, they consider it to be part of the=20 >system. Further, if you open based on losing trick count, you must=20 >pre-alert that here. Who at ACBL has said that? And here is the entire text of the=20 regulation regarding pre-alerts. Where is the part about losing trick=20 count? >PART III: PRE-ALERTS > >Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning system of any=20 >unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare.=20 >Pre-Alerts must be given before the auction period begins on the=20 >first board of a round. > > >1. TWO-SYSTEM METHODS > >Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a=20 >combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something=20 >the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is=20 >agreeing to play a forcing club system not vulnerable and "two over=20 >one" vulnerable. > >Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall=20 >strength by vulnerability do not require a pre-Alert. These methods=20 >do require, when unexpected, an Announcement (notrump ranges not=20 >within 15 to 18 HCP) or Alert (strong jump overcalls). > >As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system=20 >during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of=20 >the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time. You may,=20 >of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents methods. > >2. SYSTEMS BASED ON VERY LIGHT OPENINGS OR OTHER HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE METHODS > >If its your partnership style to routinely open hands with fewer=20 >than 11 HCP, preempt with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx)=20 >suits, and/or overcall with fewer than 6 HCP at the one level, the=20 >opponents must be pre-Alerted. > >3. SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS > >Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems=20 >that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include=20 >either strong or weak no trumps with or without five-ard majors. The=20 >forcing opening bid will most often be either a natural, strong two=20 >bid or an artificial forcing opening of 1 or 2 . > >When you play a system structured along different agreements than=20 >these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention=20 >card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that=20 >most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canap=E9=20 >system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction=20 >begins (a 10 to 12 1NT range with distributional requirements for=20 >minor suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the=20 >opponents. I'm not trying to be stroppy about this, I just can't believe you and=20 David Grabiner have the right of it. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or=20 http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOqh4Pr2UW3au93vOEQKR+wCgw7vIgZUj+GgJCMkBxuFCxzEc9dkAoPN+ 95EOPc/KyVVAeP4usFlIEjpP =+Fno -----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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 12 07:56:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BKtWF17772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2BKsvt17724 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:54:59 +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 14cCrd-000PVZ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:54:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:57:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> <3AAA094A.83031CDD@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AAA094A.83031CDD@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: >Yes, but can you classify what a particular action is ? >Gambling or Wild ? >Many actions will be both. >Some actions will be clearly one of them, but we have no >definitions as to whether they are wild or gambling. Nor do >we need them. Of course there is an "or" in there. So, since we do not need to consider it as a coherent whole why should we? What different does it make whether a TD/AC says that an action is IWoG, or whether it says it is gambling? But in my view, the latter is easier, more understandable, and better for everyone. Certainly you could also say that certain actions are wild and gambling - but that does not affect the principle. >> As you like. But since different authorities use different standards, >> others will use their own standard. Why not? >Because I already hate it when the ACBL and the EBL don't >agree, but when a ruling becomes different in the EBU and >VBL, I don't like that. Well, we already use different definitions of LAs. >BTW, did the Scottish BU follow suit ? Probably not. They don't tell us what they do. >Does the EBU really want to go it alone in as important an >issue as this one ? >And I don't mean the scrapping of a word, I mean the >handling of a revoke after an irregularity. Sure. Hopefully in time the rest of the world will agree with us and follow us. >> The original idea for split scores came from denying people the double >> shot. England feels they would like to follow the original view: the >> ACBL feels that kindness to NOs is not necessary if they make any >> sizeable mistake: the RoW is some way in-between. >I still find it hard to accept that someone who revokes gets >away with it. And I have never liked penalising a player when he does something wrong in a situation he would not be in if the oppos had done nothing wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 12 08:04:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BL40e17973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:04:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2BL3Qt17898 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:03:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt9mg.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.166.208]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA10988 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:03:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <041601c0aa6f$166ce160$c2abaec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010308135832.00848100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <015a01c0a857$a0995b80$c2abaec7@ix.netcom.com> <3AA91A67.CD6457E3@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: [BLML] theory of random minors. Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 15:06:03 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote > > > the conclusions vernes drew (in early seventies) from analysis of world > championship deals was that it was counterproductive to waste 2 opening > bids (especially 1C and 1D the more valuable ones) only to decribe > minors lengths (as long as i remember he didn't consider the choice of > which minor to open with balanced hands). When he then elaborated his > own system (Majeure d'Abord), he brought his ideas into operation by > using only one opening bid (1D) for minors (long clubs, long diamonds, > minor 2-suiters or balanced hands without 4 hearts or 4 spades) and by > using the 1C opening for an entirely different purpose (hands with 4 > spades, either balanced or with some other longer suit). No > randomisation in this system but nowadays, there is a debate between > french experts of natural bidding, about usefulness and legality to use > some or other criterion to open the longer, shorter, stronger or weaker > minor with balanced hands. > > > > JP Rocafort How I wish Vernes's studies were translated into English! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 12 08:26:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BKtdg17775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2BKt0t17735 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:04 +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 14cCrd-000PVY-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:54:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:58:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] comments pls References: <008e01c0a944$2c91d940$e6eeadcb@es.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <008e01c0a944$2c91d940$e6eeadcb@es.co.nz> 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 f2BKt8t17754 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bruce Kelly writes > ..........A98 >            4 >          AQ7543 >          AK 6 > K 10 7 2..........QJ53 > K95                 J63 > K8                  J6 > QJ94               7532 > .......64 >       AQ10872 >       1082 >        103 > dealer N all vul > bidding. > 1D-1H- > 2NT-3H- > 4C-4D- > 4NT > after the Q C lead  W got back in and assuming S had no A > (from the 4D reply to gerber)leads a H,to AQ > no questions were asked about the bidding > E-W appealed the result because they felt they were misinformed,but > director > let result(making 4) stand. > was this right? Looks OK. Why should 4C be Gerber? With no questions I doubt that West was misinformed: looks like he made an assumption - and it was wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 12 08:41:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BKtcW17774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2BKswt17728 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:54:59 +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 14cCrd-000PVa-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:54:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:49:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> <038401c0a903$abb5fa80$17a0bbd1@gw.totalweb.net> In-Reply-To: <038401c0a903$abb5fa80$17a0bbd1@gw.totalweb.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bill Bickford writes >I'd like to raise a point that occurs to me re the wild, irrational, or >gambling test after MI (this may have been raised before but I do not recall >it being addressed) > >Assume that a pair reaches 3S as a result of MI. Declarer, recognizing that >the field will be in an easy 4 spades, adopts a line which would justify his >bidding to only 3S. As a result of this anti-percentage play, he makes >exactly 3S while normal play would make 4S. > >1. Is this wild, irrational, or gambling? It depends really on whether he is expecting a ruling. If he is, then it is gambling. It is a clear attempt at the double shot. But it really is not a question one can answer for certain without the whole hand. >2. Is declarer expected to assume he will receive adjustment for the MI and >not take this abnormal line? Probably. -- 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 Mar 12 08:46:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BLkLS25984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:46:21 +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 f2BLkDt25955 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:46:14 +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 QAA05985 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:46:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA24995 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:46:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:46:09 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103112146.QAA24995@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > According to Tim in the position that everyone uses L17D we are not > allowed to do so *currently*. Perhaps I missed that part of Tim's messages. He seemed to me to be pointing out that the interpretation of 'inadvertent' is different in L17D and L25A. What that difference suggests, I don't recall Tim saying. Personally, I think the difference suggests we ought to reconsider the standard interpretation of L25A, but I expect zero agreement with that idea and do not seriously propose it. I would quite like to see a change in L25A in the next version of the Laws, but I'm sure there will be considerable controversy about any specific proposal. > Or perhaps the aim is not to provide a current interpretation but > merely to criticise the lawmakers. I think you should have more > sympathy for their job. All this stuff that seems so easy to some > people out there is not, especially when you are not going to get > agreement very easily whenever there is the least change. I agree that the lawmakers have a difficult job and have said so many times in this forum. In fact, given the history of the Laws and the difficulty of writing them, I think it's remarkable that there are so few inconsistencies in them. Part of my professional work involves writing documents that need to be clear and unambiguous; I am quite often dismayed when I have occasion to review my own past efforts. In fact, I'm quite often dismayed when my posts to BLML are read as saying something I never intended and that never would have occurred to me. > Now, Steve, one more time, according to Tim you may not use L17D when > a player takes the cards from the wrong board because he did not do so > inadvertently. Do you agree with him? Do you think his interpretation > is helpful for the game of bridge? Let me throw this one right back at you. What if you knew for sure that a player had taken his cards out of the wrong board deliberately? I know you would give a PP, DP, and call for C&E action, but how would you handle the scoring? Wouldn't you use L17D? If so, you are ignoring 'inadvertent'. OK, now I'll answer your question. I believe it's correct to ignore the 'inadvertent' in L17D. And I don't recall Tim's having said anything to the contrary. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 12 08:56:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BKtno17780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2BKtAt17764 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:14 +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 14cCrq-000PVY-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:55:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:33:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <01030911363101.03606@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20010309153005.00b74420@127.0.0.1> <002901c0a8e5$cd36c630$5613f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: <002901c0a8e5$cd36c630$5613f7a5@james> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior writes >This is so eminently sensible I am amazed that anyone would >disagree. Attempts to impose some artificial measure of hand >quality such as Work/Goren points for the trained judgement of a >bridge player flies in the face of developing expertise through >study and experience. The essence of bridge is that we can >improve our games by working at it. Take that away and we might >as well play tic tac toe. > >Therefore couching laws AND regulations in such terms as "a king >below average strength" should be commended, and banning an >opening with "less that 10 HCP" should be condemned. Tell me >that you should pass AKQxxxxxxxxx - - x! Even a novice can find >the spade slam. Points are a useful tool in hand evaluation; I >find that honour tricks are also, and any sane measure of >distributional and positional values is to be embraced as well. > > If you can find me one expert who will insist that rigid >application of 4-3-2-1 HCP evaluation will make for better >bidding, I will wonder what strange thinks he has been smoking >or sniffing or imbibing. Let's not throw the baby (bridge) out >with the bath of "full disclosure." Bridge is and always will be >a game of judgement. Let us be thankful for that and eschew all >attempts to forbid us exercising our judgement using all >authorized information available to us and all legitimate means >of evaluating that information at our disposal. Well said, Eric. I believe that people have a right, however, to know how their oppos are applying judgement. After all, you refer to an expert above, but Full disclosure applies to everyone. So people can ask and should be answered what form of valuation is used and how rigidly it is followed. -- 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 Mar 12 08:59:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BKtjY17779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2BKt8t17756 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:09 +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 14cCrn-000PVR-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:55:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:18:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <200103091932.OAA19277@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> 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 f2BKtCt17766 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <200103091932.OAA19277@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, Michael >Farebrother writes > >random minors. > >Actually he's got a 30-page set of system notes which he wants to put >past the committee, and this is one of about 8 different things he'd >like to play. > >I've told him he can call it random minor, if and only if, he has a >post-facto method of demonstrating his choice. That is he cannot toss a >coin, as this is not reproducible, and he can't read it off his watch >face. It has to be something related to the condition of the board at >the point he withdraws his hand and inspects the face of his cards. > >I have accepted I do not need to know his algorithm, just the expectancy >of outcome, unless he gets challenged. ... at which point it will be my >duty to protect him. Throughout this thread there seems to have been a question of whether an opening in a minor that does not really show minor lengths is legal, based on how the player decides, as john mentions above. The question of legality that has been expressed seems to be primarily about full disclosure. But the players who actually want to play these methods are playing in events under EBU regs, so such a method legal in view of the following regulation, taken from the Orange book: 9.1.4 No convention is permitted whose sole benefit, or one of whose main benefits, is to deceive the opponents intentionally as to: · the length or strength of a suit, and/or · the strength of the hand held by the player making the call. -- 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 Mar 12 09:11:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BKti217778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2BKsxt17729 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:45:08 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:00:29 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f2AKsuh17961 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 14:54:57 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKCv315296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:12:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJudt14894 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:05 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 07:34:50 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29DPgr27362 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 07:25:42 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29Cfnu28390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:41:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29Cfat28385 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 23:41:37 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA24345; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:41:15 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA08211; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:41:11 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010309134350.00841100@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 Mar 2001 13:43:50 +0100 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: References: <017e01c0a7ff$cde7e640$45aa01d5@davicaltd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:44 8/03/01 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: > >Suppose you play Jacoby Transfers over 1NT, and also play 1NT-3M as >natural and forcing. (Many do, in the area I play in.) Holding >game-forcing values and a 5CM, you'll transfer if you know you want >partner to play it, bid 3M if you know you want to play it, and .... shrug >your shoulders and pick one if you can't tell which is better. Does that >situation bother you as much as random minors? AG : well, this opens up a new argument ! Look , I'm a bit of a hog, and Aex isn't. Which means my 'algorithm' to decide between 2D and 3H will not be his. However, we're still playing the same system. You see, using different algorithms is not per se disallowed. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 12 09:11:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BMBau01475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 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 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 f2BMBSt01471 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:11:29 +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 f2BMBNT36396 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:11:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010311170625.00ab5c60@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, 11 Mar 2001 17:11:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! In-Reply-To: <200103091950.OAA27968@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 02:50 PM 3/9/01, Steve wrote: >This isn't an exception. Opponents are _entitled_ to know the >partnership experience, not just the explicit agreements. "Our system >notes say strong, but when he bid it three rounds ago, he was weak," is >fine. Leaving out the last clause is an infraction. Speaker's opponents now call the TD and inquire whether they have the right to know whether the speaker's partner was aware of the fact that he misbid three rounds ago when he made his bid just now. Do they? 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 Mar 12 09:15:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BKtZw17773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:35 +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.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2BKsvt17726 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:54:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:45:09 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:01:16 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f2AKthh19170 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 14:55:44 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKDi415324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:13:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJvHt14957 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:33 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:45:06 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26IYCU25688 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:34:12 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26I0RU06112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:00:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26I0Kt06108 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:00:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhv3.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.227]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15614 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:00:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002701c0a667$45904920$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <01c09c49$3ced3c60$0100007f@localhost> <002f01c09c58$53b99420$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:00:03 -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 First off, welcome back David!. I hope that you are recovering from your hospital stay, and are feeling better each day. You were greatly missed in your absence. I'm delighted to see you back and posting again, as I learn a great deal from your comments and value them highly. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows > Hirsch Davis writes > > >> Bidding goes > >> > >> W N E S > >> ============= > >> <> <> <> 1N > >> 2C 2N P 3C > >> P P X P > >> 3S P 4C P > >> 4S 5C X end > > >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? > > Doubles in competitive situations in England tend not to be for > penalties. > If I ever get to play in England, I'm going to bid a LOT, particularly if opponents are going to give me the three level unmolested. I'll skip the bridge analysis, as much of it depends on the actual agreements the players had. The real question I was trying to get at was whether or not pass by W, with far more defense than his original bid promised, was an LA after the double by E. If so, would the E hesitation demonstrably suggest that pulling the double would be more successful than leaving it in? If their agreements are such that pass is not an LA, then my argument is of course immaterial. Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 12 09:17:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BMGqj02647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:16:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2BMGit02609 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:16:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt9mg.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.166.208]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA22629 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:16:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <043101c0aa79$53d66c60$c2abaec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> <3AAA094A.83031CDD@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:19:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote > > >I still find it hard to accept that someone who revokes gets > >away with it. > > And I have never liked penalising a player when he does something > wrong in a situation he would not be in if the oppos had done nothing > wrong. > Thanks, David, I have never liked it either, so I agree. Also: When a non-offender feels wronged, his mind is often in a state where revokes are far more likely. It seems to me that revokes occur far more often after an opponent's wrong that at ordinary times. Anyone think this point is either false or irrelevant? Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 12 09:28:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BKtsb17781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2BKt2t17739 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:45:13 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Sat, 10 Mar 2001 16:51:42 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2ALkn202429 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:46:49 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AJwLV14985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:58:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuNt14846 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:56:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:46:47 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:39:10 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29Hd7r12519 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:39:07 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29H9xD11722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:09:59 +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 f29H9pt11718 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:09:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive49g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.48]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA00982; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:09:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001b01c0a8bc$bd98ce40$3011f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:16:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd you will have to back this up in some way. I certainly know of no such acbl regulations as you have imputed. Can you please cite where these regs are...on the web site of acbl perhaps, or in duplicate decisions...or in acbl score tact notes? Where areyou getting this information? Kent or Chyah (or Gary), if you are reading this can you tell us if there is really such a regulation? Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. > >From: Wayne Burrows > > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > Losing trick count, total points, and quick tricks are all other > >evaluation > > > techniques for opening a hand. In the ACBL, you cannot open based on > >HCP > > > and your partner based on losing tricks or any other mis-matched > >techniques. > > > >Well I am sorry but this is a regulation that is clearly contrary to Law 40 > >E1. In that Law the strongest possible term "must not" is applied to the > >ability of a SO's right to restrict judgement. > > > >How my partner or I evaluate our hands is the essence of judgement. > > Talk to the ACBL about it, they consider it to be part of the system. > Further, if you open based on losing trick count, you must pre-alert that > here. > > -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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 12 09:54:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BMsDl03293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:54:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2BMrft03288 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:53:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2BMraT38403 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:53:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010311172735.00b84900@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, 11 Mar 2001 17:53:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anybody who thinks that BLML discussions must have some remote possibility of applying to something that might actually matter in a real event might want to kill this thread now... At 07:19 PM 3/9/01, Todd wrote: >So what about the original question in this thread? A pair play >"random balanced minors". Is this legal? > >(My thoughts in parens.) >Issues about randomness: >1.) Is it necessary that the random function be unbiased in its >result? (no) >2.) Can you use external variables, i.e. # of letters in LHO's name? (yes) >3.) Can the function for generating your random number be >cryptographically strong? (yes) >4.) Must the function ... cryptographically strong? (no) >5.) Can the generator be stochastic [including some random, >non-reproduceable event as input, e.g. order of cards before you >sorted, TD in line-of-sight when it's your turn to bid, etc.]? (yes) >6.) Must the generator be stochastic? (no) > >Issues about system: >1.) If the pair play different algorithms with different pdfs >[probability distribution function], are these considered different >systems? (yes) Up to this point I agree. >2.) If the pair play different algorithms with the same pdf, is this >considered playing different systems? (yes) It shouldn't be. If we each undertake to generate an unreproducable event with an n% probability, and succeed to within statistical tolerance, why should it matter how we did it? >3.) If the pair play different algorithms with the same results, is >this considered playing different systems? (no) > >Other issues about legality: >1.) If you decide to play different algorithms, can you reveal yours >to your partner? Yes. (A wiseguy would point out that you can't otherwise verifiably agree to play different algorithms.) >2.) Must you disclose your algorithm to opponents if they ask? >(probably dependent on the answer to 1, above, but certainly yes if >you've revealed it to partner.) Your opponents are entitled to know what your partner knows. In theory it shouldn't make any difference to them (they care only about the PDF), but they're entitled to figure that out for themselves. >3.) Must you disclose your pdf to the opponents? (Yes. Partner, if >ever paying attention, can reconstruct this from his experience, but >apparently ignorance is bliss?) Yes, of course, since the PDF *is* the method (or at least the "random" part). But partner doesn't need to reconstruct it from experience; he can know it in advance, indeed must know it in advance if he is to randomize using the same PDF, which we agree he must do if he is to be playing the same system. 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 Mar 12 09:56:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BKtxa17782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2BKsxt17731 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:45:11 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:02:03 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f2AKuUh20240 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 14:56:31 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AKE8B15337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:14:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJvHt14959 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:32 -0600 Received: from texlog2.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.223]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:05:53 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by texlog2.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f29KC7h02996 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:12:08 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29JYwc12673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:34:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29JY8t12658 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:34:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:17:36 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:01:24 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26AoZU11942 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 04:50:35 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26AKPF17066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:20:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26AJjt17046 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:19:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-70-191.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.70.191]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09026 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:19:14 GMT Message-ID: <002001c0a627$043213e0$bf46063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: [BLML] .quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo .. (was St. P) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:18:44 -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 "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: . ------------ \x/ -------------- > > To have sensible rulings by ACs and TDs .............. > ........... terminology has to be understood. > +=+ It is part of their education that they read the definitions in the law book. In the main subscribers to blml are also 'educated', possibly from choice. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 12 09:57:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2BKu4s17785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:56:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2BKt3t17744 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:55:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:45:14 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Sat, 10 Mar 2001 17:35:06 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2ANMu224170 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 17:22:56 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2AK2AA15067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:02:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com ([24.93.35.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2AJuot14920 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:47:19 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:32:30 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f29ENMr28651 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:23:22 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f29Dvvi01456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:57:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f29Dvit01446 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:57:45 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA25832; Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:57:41 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Mar 09 15:01:21 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 <01K0ZWEYSHW00047CR@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:57:12 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:52:08 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:29:28 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Ghestem again! To: "'Martin Sinot'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7DB@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 was done a few years ago, but after some heavy protests, this > >>practice was discontinued. Although we very much want to punish all > >>Ghestem errors, the Laws don't allow us to. We can punish > misinformation > >>and we can punish the use of unauthorised info, but if the > offenders do > >>neither, then we can only weep with the opponents. So the > Dutch aren't > >>"right" anymore. We never were. (in my opinion, and with respect to this issue) ton > > > > We discussed this in the EBU, and I was in a minority of one in > >supporting special anti-Ghestem rules. > > > > But make no mistake: they are legal. Under L40D the SO has wide > >powers to regulate conventions, and a regulation based on > L40D such as > >any error in Ghestem leads to a full board penalty or a ban > from playing > >it within three months of getting it wrong are perfectly legal. > > Of course they are legal. (only) once more. I don't think they are legal. We need a crinky (you understand me) interpretation to get to that conclusion. My main objection has to do with redress for the non offenders, that was my subject! Penalties are not of much interest, yes we may try to discourage the play of conventions. ton But no such (written) rules existed at the > time they were punishing every Ghestem error. > > -- > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 12 13:56:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2C2s9J15570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:54:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2C2rlt15566 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:53:49 +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 f2C2okb12316 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:50:47 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <01030911363101.03606@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20010309153005.00b74420@127.0.0.1> <002901c0a8e5$cd36c630$5613f7a5@james> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:46:24 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I believe that people have a right, however, to know how their oppos >are applying judgement. After all, you refer to an expert above, but >Full disclosure applies to everyone. So people can ask and should be >answered what form of valuation is used and how rigidly it is followed. And if a novice asks this question of an expert, will he understand the answer? :-) 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/AwUBOqw6Cb2UW3au93vOEQKPUACg+3kWmzco1JwvSPyrFsxvQ+EduJsAoNVU 4TXHwcz52R32Pnb0yj6LKghL =sXcs -----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 Mar 12 16:21:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2C5IJo02420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:18:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2C5ICt02416 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:18:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]>; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:17:53 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 5:16:11 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: David Stevenson > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:18:06 +0000 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > John (MadDog) Probst writes > >In article <200103091932.OAA19277@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, Michael > >Farebrother writes > > > >random minors. > > > >Actually he's got a 30-page set of system notes which he wants to put > >past the committee, and this is one of about 8 different things he'd > >like to play. > > > >I've told him he can call it random minor, if and only if, he has a > >post-facto method of demonstrating his choice. That is he cannot toss a > >coin, as this is not reproducible, and he can't read it off his watch > >face. It has to be something related to the condition of the board at > >the point he withdraws his hand and inspects the face of his cards. > > > >I have accepted I do not need to know his algorithm, just the expectancy > >of outcome, unless he gets challenged. ... at which point it will be my > >duty to protect him. > > Throughout this thread there seems to have been a question of whether > an opening in a minor that does not really show minor lengths is legal, > based on how the player decides, as john mentions above. The question > of legality that has been expressed seems to be primarily about full > disclosure. > > But the players who actually want to play these methods are playing in > events under EBU regs, so such a method legal in view of the following > regulation, taken from the Orange book: > > 9.1.4 No convention is permitted whose sole benefit, > or one of whose main benefits, is to deceive > the opponents intentionally as to: > > · the length or strength of a suit, and/or > · the strength of the hand held > > by the player making the call. > The bid is not deceptive if it is correctly explained - it just does not give any information about relative minor lengths when opener turns up with a balanced 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/ > 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 Mon Mar 12 22:54:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CBrm810570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:53:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2CBrdt10519 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:53:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA13141; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:49:43 +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 MAA11056; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:53:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010312125558.0086f100@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 Mar 2001 12:55:58 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML], subsequent foul hasn't happened, was:Just checking In-Reply-To: <3AAA094A.83031CDD@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@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 12:00 10/03/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I still find it hard to accept that someone who revokes gets >away with it. AG : just one little subtelty : if West, in the initial example, had been lawful & ethic, North wouldn't have found himself defending the contract. Assume North is some guy who often panics in defense. He would strive to have his side play the contract, and if this is denied to him by an opp's infraction, he is put into the bad conditions directly by the infraction. And, yes, the lack of time due to the TD call (which is also West's fault) could contribue to North's negligence. To put it shortly, West's infraction is partly the cause of North's revoke. One could assume that, without the infraction, the revoke would not have happened. This is especially true if North was bound to become dummy. The motto should not be 'if he revokes, shoot him' (after all, the infraction is less serious than the use uf UI, because it is surely not intentional), but 'restore the result as it would have been before the first infraction'. Who would dare pretend the revoke would have happened at a normal contract ? To Herman specifically : if you are caught lbw on a 'no ball', you are *not* out. To everybody : tackling from behind a man who is offside would *not* create a penalty. In those cases, they get away with it. Regards, Alain. > >-- >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 Mon Mar 12 22:56:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CBuDj11413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:56:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CBu5t11368 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:56:06 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA28341; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:55:42 +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 MAA12865; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:55:39 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010312125823.0086f5f0@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 Mar 2001 12:58:23 +0100 To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Wayne Burrows" , "David J Grabiner" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Cc: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: <000401c0aa16$c1807e80$3a387bd5@dodona> References: <20010310223010.URLM17343171.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 10:26 11/03/01 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ Law 40E actually says that what regulation >may restrict is 'method'. A regulation may require >that the meaning of a call shall be the same >whichever of the two partners makes the call. The >subsequent action of a player shall not then treat >partner's call as having a different meaning than >it would have when he made it himself. AG : that's the key of the whole thing ! If both partners use different algorithms, they will nevertheless treat partner's 1m opening as they would their own. Thus they are not playing different systems. 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 Mar 12 23:10:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CCAM616437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:10:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CCAFt16397 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:10:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA18193; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:06:19 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA22867; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:09:51 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010312131234.00831680@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 Mar 2001 13:12:34 +0100 To: "Bruce Kelly" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] comments pls In-Reply-To: <008e01c0a944$2c91d940$e6eeadcb@es.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:26 10/03/01 +1300, Bruce Kelly wrote: .........A98 4 AQ7543 AK 6 K 10 7 2..........QJ53 K95 J63 K8 J6 QJ94 7532 .......64 AQ10872 1082 103 bidding. 1D-1H- 2NT-3H- 4C-4D- 4NT W got back in and assuming S had no A >(from the 4D reply to gerber)leads a H,to AQ no questions were asked about >the bidding E-W appealed the result because they felt they were >misinformed,but director let result(making 4) stand. was this right? AG : if West didn't ask, how can he : 1) assume 4C was Gerber ? (this is certainly an uncommon occurrence for Gerber) 2) assume 4D meant no ace ? 3) not realize there happened something ? 2NT doesn't seem natural. Of course, the result should stand. If West had asked, received a response of 'no ace' *and* if the answer *meant* one Ace, there would have been misinformation. Here, assuming 4C is Gerber, I'd suspect 4D indeed meant no Ace, that South responded no Ace because he was so weak, which he is entitled to do unless he does regularly, and N/S are not doing anything faulty. 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 Mar 13 00:01:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CD19C20501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:01:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CD13t20462 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:01:03 +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 f2CD0xT79051 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:00:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312074903.00abaef0@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 Mar 2001 08:00:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:19 PM 3/9/01, Todd wrote: >"Eric Landau" >> > If partner will open a particular 12 HCP hand that I won't, I don't >> > see how it should matter whether my reason for passing the hand is >> > that it has seven losers, or that it has only 1-1/2 QT, or that >> > my "expert judgment" tells me it's not an opening bid. Whether this >> > means we're playing different systems can only be a matter of how >> > often it happens, not why. > >If an equivalence relation existed between two systems, I'd agree (I >don't find that one exists between rule of 20 and LTC), but as far as >measuring error between them it might not be a matter of how often, >but how jarringly. If you disagree about 2 hands out of a hundred >(and agree about the 5 further below), but those 2 hands are: >Qxxxxx Kxxxx Ax - >AQ AQ AQ xxxxxxx >is that more or less "the same system" as disagreeing about these 5 >hands out of 100 being: >Axxx Axx Axx Jxx >AKx Axx xxx Jxxx >KQx Kxx Qx Kxxxx >QJx QJx QJx QJxx >K Kxxx Kxxx KJxx >and agreeing about the 2 futher above? I don't know, but I don't think it matters. In either case, the question we should ask is whether, if the partnership bid differently on the given hands based on their differing "pure judgments" rather than their differing quantitative hand evaluation methods, we would consider them to be playing the same system or not. We should get the same answer in either case. My point is that the distinction between using "pure judgment" and using (particularly multiple, which I believe most experts do) quantitative evaluation methods can be a subtle one, with many cases too close for a consensus call. Therefore any reasonable "test" of "system sameness" can only be based on the extent to which the partners might make different calls with the same hand on the same auction, not on their reasons for doing so. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 00:29:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CDTBK00617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:29:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CDT4t00576 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:29:04 +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 f2CDT0F09953 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:29:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312080639.00abaa60@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 Mar 2001 08:27:14 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <038401c0a903$abb5fa80$17a0bbd1@gw.totalweb.net> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:44 PM 3/9/01, Bill wrote: >Assume that a pair reaches 3S as a result of MI. Declarer, >recognizing that >the field will be in an easy 4 spades, adopts a line which would >justify his >bidding to only 3S. As a result of this anti-percentage play, he makes >exactly 3S while normal play would make 4S. > >1. Is this wild, irrational, or gambling? Not if I'm reading the example correctly. If it would be reasonable for him to take that line in 3S had he gotten there due to his side's blunder rather than an opponent's infraction, it is equally reasonable in the latter case. >2. Is declarer expected to assume he will receive adjustment for the >MI and >not take this abnormal line? No. Declarer is expected to play to maximize his expected matchpoint result at the contract reached at the table. If the contract is changed in the ensuing adjudication, he need only show that it would have been not unlikely for him to have taken a different line in the adjusted contract. The TD/AC must accept this unless they deem his "abnormal" line in the original contract to be an "egregious error", or a "wild, gambling or irrational action", or whatever. 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 Mar 13 00:56:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CDtgN10072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:55:42 +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-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 f2CDtZt10037 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:55:35 +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 f2CDtVF11458 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:55:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312082858.00b78eb0@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 Mar 2001 08:55:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <038401c0a903$abb5fa80$17a0bbd1@gw.totalweb.net> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This thread has given me some possible insight into why the ACBL has developed a reputation for being rather extreme in its practice of denying redress to non-offenders who fail to "continue to play bridge" after an opponent's infraction; I fear that if it goes on too much longer, we may fall into the same psychological trap. The AC, doing its job, first, perhaps after a great deal of discussion and debate, determines an adjusted result by applying L12C2. This quantifies the "subsequent damage" suffered by the NOs. Their next step is to examine that subsequent damage and determine how much of it is "consequent to the infraction" and how much (the remainder) is "self-inflicted". As we've seen, this can be subtle and difficult. But when they finally succeed, they are in a position to redress only the consequent damage (for the NOs), leaving them to "suffer" the loss occasioned by the self-inflicted damage in the adjusted result. The temptation to do exactly that becomes overwhelming (especially when justified by some as meeting some assumed goal of "equity", or, worse, "protecting the field"), and that's what they do. But that's wrong. In the vast majority of cases, we are required to redress all the damage, including both the consequent and the self-inflicted. We are supposed to deny redress for self-inflicted damage only if the damage was not merely self-inflicted, but self-inflicted as the result of an egregious error (ACBL), a wild or gambling action (EBU), a wild, gambling or irrational action (WBF), or whatever (elsewhere). All too often, this seems to get overlooked. We're establishing precedents for denying redress to NOs for *any* "self-inflicted damage", which is building a body of jurisprudence (in the ACBL) that is making it effectively an infraction, punishable by denial of redress in some cases in which the opponents have committed a prior infraction, to play ordinary bad bridge. 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 Mar 13 01:14:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CEDmX16475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:13:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CEDgt16438 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:13:42 +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 f2CEDbr40445 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:13:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312090258.00ac8830@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 Mar 2001 09:13:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] comments pls In-Reply-To: <008e01c0a944$2c91d940$e6eeadcb@es.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_68336089==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_68336089==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 04:26 AM 3/10/01, Bruce wrote: >..........A98 > 4 > AQ7543 > AK 6 >K 10 7 2..........QJ53 >K95 J63 >K8 J6 >QJ94 7532 >.......64 > AQ10872 > 1082 > 103 >dealer N all vul >bidding. >1D-1H- >2NT-3H- >4C-4D- >4NT >after the Q C lead W got back in and assuming S had no A >(from the 4D reply to gerber)leads a H,to AQ >no questions were asked about the bidding >E-W appealed the result because they felt they were misinformed,but >director >let result(making 4) stand. >was this right? If there were no alerts and no questions asked, the only possible source of misinformation would have been a failure to alert. So we need to ask two questions: (1) What did 4C (and 4D) mean in the partnership's methods? (2) Given the answer to (1), does this require an alert in the local jurisdiction? If the answer to (2) is no, there is no basis for adjusting the score. It sounds to me as though the most likely answers in Bruce's scenario are that 4C was natural (as was 4D), and that no alert would have been required, so the TD was correct -- West assumed without asking that 4C was Gerber, at his own risk, and was wrong; too bad for him. 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 --=====================_68336089==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 04:26 AM 3/10/01, Bruce wrote:

..........A98
           4
         AQ7543
         AK 6
K 10 7 2..........QJ53
K95                 J63
K8                  J6
QJ94               7532
.......64
      AQ10872
      1082
       103
dealer N all vul
bidding.
1D-1H-
2NT-3H-
4C-4D-
4NT
after the Q C lead  W got back in and assuming S had no A
(from the 4D reply to gerber)leads a H,to AQ
no questions were asked about the bidding
E-W appealed the result because they felt they were misinformed,but director
let result(making 4) stand.
was this right?

If there were no alerts and no questions asked, the only possible source of misinformation would have been a failure to alert.  So we need to ask two questions:  (1) What did 4C (and 4D) mean in the partnership's methods?  (2) Given the answer to (1), does this require an alert in the local jurisdiction?  If the answer to (2) is no, there is no basis for adjusting the score.  It sounds to me as though the most likely answers in Bruce's scenario are that 4C was natural (as was 4D), and that no alert would have been required, so the TD was correct -- West assumed without asking that 4C was Gerber, at his own risk, and was wrong; too bad for him.


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 --=====================_68336089==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 01:34:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CEYgq23903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:34:42 +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 f2CEYZt23870 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:34:36 +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 f2CEYVa60798 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:34:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312092455.00a9a7e0@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 Mar 2001 09:34:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3AAA094A.83031CDD@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:00 AM 3/10/01, Herman wrote: >I still find it hard to accept that someone who revokes gets >away with it. Why? "Getting away with" blunders (even "egregious" ones) as a result of an opponent's infraction is routine in just about every other sport or game. A prizefighter who puts up a terrible fight and is getting slaughtered on points still wins the bout when his opponent gets disqualified for a foul. A chess player who commits an obviously losing blunder still wins the game when his opponent runs out of time. An American football quarterback who throws a terrible pass, intercepted by the defense and run back for a touchdown, gets the score annulled, the ball back, and a five-yard gain for good measure when an official calls the defense offside. What is unique about bridge that suggests that such things shouldn't be allowed to happen? 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 Mar 13 02:25:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CFP6211760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:25:06 +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 f2CFOxt11725 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:25:00 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id QAA15609; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:24:38 +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 QAA07120; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:24:36 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010312162719.00830ea0@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 Mar 2001 16:27:19 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312074903.00abaef0@127.0.0.1> References: 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 f2CFP2t11739 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:00 12/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 07:19 PM 3/9/01, Todd wrote: > >>"Eric Landau" >>> > If partner will open a particular 12 HCP hand that I won't, I don't >>> > see how it should matter whether my reason for passing the hand is >>> > that it has seven losers, or that it has only 1-1/2 QT, or that >>> > my "expert judgment" tells me it's not an opening bid. Whether this >>> > means we're playing different systems can only be a matter of how >>> > often it happens, not why. >> >>If an equivalence relation existed between two systems, I'd agree AG : in an old partnership, I used a very intricate point count system, vaguely based on 4.5-3-2-1-.5 Work points but with many corrections, that was aimed at producing a probabilistic evaluation (expectancy) of the # of tricks that the hand would yield. We used this mainly to decide what was a strong hand (to be opened with 1NT, Romex style) and what was a game forcing hand (to be opened 2C). 23 points were needed to open 1NT, 27 to open 2C. Since the count was so difficult to describe (witness the evaluations of hands below), we didn't use it in explaining the hand ; we directly changed this to a trick-taking potential evaluation (divide points by 3). Nobody challenged our explanations. In fact, both systems were quasi-equivalent. Were we wrong to describe directly in tricks, because we didn't count in tricks ? (I >>don't find that one exists between rule of 20 and LTC), but as far as >>measuring error between them it might not be a matter of how often, >>but how jarringly. If you disagree about 2 hands out of a hundred >>(and agree about the 5 further below), but those 2 hands are: >>Qxxxxx Kxxxx Ax - Qxxxxx 2 HCP + 1½ for honor-sixth Kxxxx 3 HCP + ½ for honor-fifth Ax 4½ HCP + 1 for shortness --- 4 for void going with 6-card suit total : 16½ FIKS points (that's the name), or 5½ tricks. Sound opening bid. Add SA and HQ, and it is a 1NT opening (value 24 pts, or about 8 tricks). >>AQ AQ AQ xxxxxxx AQ 6 HCP + 1 for shortness xxxxxxx 1½ for honorless 7-card suit total : 22½ FIKS points, or 7½ tricks. Worth a strong rebid (in this case 1C-1y-2NT, 5+ clubs, fairly balanced). >>is that more or less "the same system" as disagreeing about these 5 >>hands out of 100 being: >>Axxx Axx Axx Jxx 14 points. Bare opening. >>AKx Axx xxx Jxxx 13 points. Do not open. Open if holding J10xx. >>KQx Kxx Qx Kxxxx 13½ points. Bare opening. Worth 14½ when changing DQ to CQ. >>QJx QJx QJx QJxx 10½ points. No comment. >>K Kxxx Kxxx KJxx 13½ points. Bare opening. Best 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 Mar 13 02:47:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CFlUH19764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:47:30 +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-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 f2CFlKt19702 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:47:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-109.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.109]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2CFlFH20634 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:47:16 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AACBC55.94CD439E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:08:53 +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] Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> <3AAA094A.83031CDD@village.uunet.be> <043101c0aa79$53d66c60$c2abaec7@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote > > > > > >I still find it hard to accept that someone who revokes gets > > >away with it. > > > > And I have never liked penalising a player when he does something > > wrong in a situation he would not be in if the oppos had done nothing > > wrong. > > > > Thanks, David, I have never liked it either, so I agree. > > Also: When a non-offender feels wronged, his mind is often in a state where > revokes are far more likely. It seems to me that revokes occur far more > often after an opponent's wrong that at ordinary times. Anyone think this > point is either false or irrelevant? > The point is not false, and certainly not irrelevant. In fact, it is the only point I can think of that would make sense. But we have to be serious. We tell one offender "no, we don't believe it matters that he misdefended, because he should not have been in that contract in the first place" and he may well believe us. But when we say the same with revoked in stead of misdefended, they will laugh in our faces. > Jerry Fusselman > -- 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 Mar 13 02:47:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CFlYh19786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:47:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CFlNt19720 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:47:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-109.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.109]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2CFlIH20653 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:47:18 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:47:46 +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: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Some threads have gone on and on about the new EBU approach. Let's get back to basics. We are talking about L12C2. "the score is, ... the most favourable ... likely, ... the most unfavourable ... at all possible _had the irregularity not occurred_" (omission, reversal and emphasis all mine). That's all - no IWoG, no WoG, no EggErr, nothing else. Also we need to read two laws that direct us to L12 : L16A2: "... if an infraction of law has resulted in damage" Nothing about consequent or subsequent - but "resulted in" seems to me to imply a link between the infraction and the damage. L40C: ".. a side has been damaged through (MI)..." Again a reference ("through") to some link between infraction and damage. Surely this is a good indication that there is such a thing as "subsequent damage" and that there should be no redress for such damage. Some things have happened since these Laws have been put to paper (and that was longer ago than any of the last 2 laws changes). - EK started writing about subsequent damage. - This term needed a definition. - That definition was not the same everywhere. - One definition included "wild, gambling or irrational". - The EBU changed that definition to "Wild or Gambling". - DWS and others now argue that a revoke is not wild or gambling, and that revoking after an infraction does not alter the AS. But none of these happenings changed one letter to the original Laws, and these still talk about a link between infraction and damage. Jerry pointed out that sometimes an infraction causes confusion and thence a revoke; a point well taken, but hardly a convincing argument. After all, an individual TD can still decide that the infraction did cause the confusion and the revoke, and decide the revoke was consequential after all. That need not alter our general perception that a revoke is subsequent. No, we really must return to the laws and form a decision on which occurences after an infraction are deemed "consequent" and which "subsequent" (for want of better words). My vote is that revokes are in general "subsequent". A recent case, not involving revokes, illustrates my reasons for believing this. NS have made an infraction (a small amount of MI) By a convoluted argument, we might agree that without the infraction, EW could have been in 5Di. At the table, NS are in 5Sp. The normal contract, without any infraction, is 4Sp, which is easy for 10 tricks, and which makes with an overtrick at the other table because it is hard to see that defenders need to cash their three winners. But at this table, opening leader cashes two winners and then plays in ruff and discard, while he still has a third winner in hand. I concluded that EW were to blame for their own defensive error. (a really awful error, believe me) If we would have needed to correct to 4Sp making whatever, we would probably correct to +450 anyway. But in this case there is a possible correction to 5DiX-2, +300. (I won't get into this - it was not clear at all, and I ruled based on "no damage" so I can't really tell - but let's assume it). +450 was not a "bad" score (it was a push - for the reason I stated) but of course +300 was better for NOs. However, through their own (really - egregious) error they turned a potential -50 into a flat board. So I let the result stand. No damage. Surely we understand that this was a correct ruling. But how can you explain this in the light of this new EBU interpretation. Now I hear you saying : there is no IWoG involved here, and you'd be right. This case was judged without any reference to IWoG before, and I'm sure that DWS, under current EBU regs, would rule this case exactly as I did (well, I've been sure of that before - and wrong, and I'm not writing this in much confidence - but you understand my point). And that is just the problem. If DWS would rule this case like this, how would he rule it if it were different ? If, in stead of east playing ruff and discard, west would have revoked on the third trick, thus giving the contract ? That's an even worse error than the one that was comitted ! Another point is that you might rule this case because 5Sp is the same strain as the contract that would have been reached without infraction. Some people point to the "likely result had the infraction not occurred" bit of L12C2, and use this to take care of subsequent errors. But that argument does not always work, and I prefer not to need it at all. Consider what would have happened if the contract without infraction would have been 4He. Suppose this easily makes +2 (normal score +480), while the table result should have been -50, but is now +450. In a case like that, you cannot rely on L12C2 to give an AS of +450. You now must rely on the subsequent damage bit. The infraction turned (+420 or +450) into +300, and there is no damage. Later error by Os turned this into -50, so there is even less damage. Then subsequent error by NOs turned the result into +450 again. I know that the WBF have recently defined damage as the difference between the table result and the expected result absent the infraction. I'm not certain if it was their intent to abolish the distinction between subsequent and consequent damage, which seems to have at least some foundation in the Laws. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 03:10:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CG9xD23354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 03:09:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thor.inter.net.il (thor.inter.net.il [192.114.186.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2CG9pt23350 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 03:09:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-5-136.inter.net.il [213.8.5.136]) by thor.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ALQ80524; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:08:34 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AACF603.70E10ECF@inter.net.il> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:15:00 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well I try to learn the solution to the real problem I met some months ago: Playing with screens , same start of bidding - see the modifications after 3Cl doubled - almost the same cards: David Stevenson wrote: > B32 -- W N E S > E/W KJT94 > D:W QJT86 1S 3C#1 X#2 P > T98 P 3D .......... > AKJT43 Q2 > A83 ++ Q7652 > 5 ++ K42 #1 Alerted: described as H + C > Q76 A53 #2 Alerted: described as penalty > 98765 oriented: description later > K/O -- L:DQ changed to "values" > TMS A973 4Sx-1 > KJ42 There were 3 different tables , where the bidding was : West North East South Table A 1Sp 3Cl Dbl P P 3D All P NO questions after 3D Table B 1Sp 3Cl Dbl P P 3D P 4Cl P 4D P^ All P ^ East asked South what should mean 3D and 4D ...South said "..one of us misbid or not sure the convention" Table C 1Sp 3Cl Dbl P P 3D P P 3Sp 4D Dbl All Pass NO QUESTIONS after the explanation of 3Cl= H & Cl.. At the end of the board , E_W summoned the TD at all the tables. What will you decide ???? Tx 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 Tue Mar 13 04:44:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CHhXU02539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:43:33 +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 f2CHhRt02506 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:43:27 +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 JAA31342; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:43:24 -0800 Message-Id: <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Mar 2001 05:16:11 GMT." <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:43:19 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > > But the players who actually want to play these methods are playing in > > events under EBU regs, so such a method legal in view of the following > > regulation, taken from the Orange book: > > > > 9.1.4 No convention is permitted whose sole benefit, > > or one of whose main benefits, is to deceive > > the opponents intentionally as to: > > > > - the length or strength of a suit, and/or > > - the strength of the hand held > > > > by the player making the call. > > > > The bid is not deceptive if it is correctly explained - it just does > not give any information about relative minor lengths when opener > turns up with a balanced hand. That was my first thought upon reading the OB quote. In fact, I have to question whether there can be such a thing as a "convention whose sole benefit is to deceive the opponents . . .". It seems tautologically impossible. All conventions must be explained correctly when asked, and AFAIK the alert rules in every jurisdiction mean that if a bid unexpectedly does not show something in the bid suit, there will be an Alert, so that the opponents will not be able to assume that it shows the suit. Thus, if there's any "deception" going on, it would be because of MI, not because of the convention itself. It's certainly possible to come up with a convention that *conceals* information about the length or strength of a suit or about the strength of a hand. I cannot believe the OB intended to ban such conventions. It's also possible for a convention to make it safer to psych in some situations. For example, the old-fashioned way of playing strong jump shifts was, I think, that opener would respond in notrump to announce that the opening bid was a psych. That would prevent responder from driving to slam with his 19-count. A convention like that is called a "psychic control" and is illegal in the ACBL. However, the 9.1.4 wording doesn't seem to be about this type of bid, since it speaks of the convention itself deceiving the opponents, rather than a convention making it safe for a prior bid to deceive the opponents. In any case, I don't think the "random minor" discussion is about a psychic control anyway, unless I'm missing something. Can someone provide an example of a convention that violates OB 9.1.4? I'm having trouble believing that it's possible. -- 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 Mar 13 06:09:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CJ8KG10854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 06:08:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com (sm2.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2CJ89t10850 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 06:08:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:08:03 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:23:18 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26GNGA01542 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:23:16 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26EtbO17810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 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 claret.4js-emea.com (mailgate.4js-emea.com [193.195.72.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26Et2t17720 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:55:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from PAMH (pamh.4js-emea.com [10.0.0.212]) by claret.4js-emea.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA32032 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:54:56 GMT From: "Pam Hadfield" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] MI & UI Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:54:49 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@127.0.0.1> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 06 March 2001 13:11, Eric Landau wrote: > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI > ..snip.. > > As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know > what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect > your own calls? Why on earth would anyone feel the need to ask these questions *during the auction* when doing so might pass UI to partner or clarify the ops system for them? Surely those question would be more appropriate at the end of the auctions before the opening lead - after all, isn't that why we all say "any questions partner?" when we lead face down? Pam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 07:14:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CKDSq01869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:13:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com (sm2.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2CKDNt01865 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:13:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:12:17 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au ([150.203.20.9]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:01:50 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26ME4K13309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:14:05 +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 f26MDst13265 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:13:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA25718 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:13:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA00606 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:13:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:13:44 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103062213.RAA00606@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > even the culprits are sufficiently embarrassed as to be very happy with > a short sharp 30%/60% next board please. I don't doubt the culprits are happy to get 30%, but are the NOS happy with a mere 60%? It seems to me that botching a two-suited overcall is a quick way to a zero unless you use UI to recover or the MI causes the opponents to "recover" for you. (Yes, it's easy to construct exceptions. We have seen some on BLML.) Nevertheless, Anne's broader point is well-taken. If a particular type of infraction is causing big problems, maybe it's time to look for a quick way to adjust. (I haven't seen problems around here, but maybe that's because the two-suited overcalls aren't popular.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 13 07:39:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CKd0Q03996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:39:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CKcrt03955 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:38:53 +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 PAA29880 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA290389513; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:38:33 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:38:32 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] Law 31A2 (BOOT in denomination of legal opener) Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:38:32 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLMLrs, A pretty little case away from "random minors" or Ghestem.... South opens 1D, East being the dealer. TD is called. West does not accept the BOOT and auction reverts to East who now opens 1D. TD then offers options of Law 31A2: if the offender: a) repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, (penalty) offender'r partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. b) does not repeat..... offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. South chooses a) and bid 2D. The auction goes: E S W N 1D 2D P P (mandatory) X P P ? Does Law 31A2 a) apply the same manner when legal opener bid the suit of the BOOT and the offenders normaly play the cue bid as conventional ? Law 31 seems to say yes. As N-S normaly play 2D as Michael (S + H), does N is then authorized to "know" that 2D is likely natural after such an infraction? IWhat is your ruling if N has 4 Ss and 1 D and finaly P ((2DX makes but 2S would go down 1) ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 07:59:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CKx5810902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:59:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CKwrt10841 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:58:54 +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 QAA27336 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:05:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103122105.QAA27336@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:05:24 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 12 March 2001 at 9:43, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> > But the players who actually want to play these methods are playing in >> > events under EBU regs, so such a method legal in view of the following >> > regulation, taken from the Orange book: >> > >> > 9.1.4 No convention is permitted whose sole benefit, >> > or one of whose main benefits, is to deceive >> > the opponents intentionally as to: >> > >> > - the length or strength of a suit, and/or >> > - the strength of the hand held >> > >> > by the player making the call. >> > > >Can someone provide an example of a convention that violates OB 9.1.4? >I'm having trouble believing that it's possible. > This isn't official in any way (after all, I'm not even in the EBU), but I would believe this regulation is attempting to ban (sorry, not permit :-) things like the Suspensor 1M openings showing 6+ in the suit opened OR 0-2 in the suit opened. But I wonder where the line should be drawn. Does a two-way Club count (10-12 balanced or 17+, say)? How about Wonder bid defences to strong Clubs? How about the situation in question? Frankly, I see no advantage in this "random minors" method over opening 1D with all balanced hands outside NT ranges or unbalanced hands with diamonds. Ok, so the opponents know that a club call is real(ish). Also, 9.1.5 starts "You may not have an agreement to make random calls, including overcalls." I think this is for 1S "13 cards" overcalls of strong Clubs and such, but may have a bearing on the question, depending on what OB means by "random". Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 08:22:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CLIhe12772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:18:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2CLIbt12768 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:18:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02978; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:18:33 -0800 Message-Id: <200103122118.NAA02978@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31A2 (BOOT in denomination of legal opener) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:38:32 EST." Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:18:32 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval Du Breuil wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > A pretty little case away from "random minors" or Ghestem.... > > South opens 1D, East being the dealer. TD is called. West does not > accept the BOOT and auction reverts to East who now opens 1D. > TD then offers options of Law 31A2: if the offender: > > a) repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, (penalty) > offender'r partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. > > b) does not repeat..... offender's partner must pass whenever it > is his turn to call. > > South chooses a) and bid 2D. The auction goes: > > E S W N > 1D 2D P P (mandatory) > X P P ? > > Does Law 31A2 a) apply the same manner when legal opener > bid the suit of the BOOT and the offenders normaly play > the cue bid as conventional ? Law 31 seems to say yes. Right. L31 doesn't make any provisions for bids that "would have been conventional." However, L23 might apply, if it allows N-S to play in a conventional bid that might not have been available to them otherwise. I'm not certain whether that would apply here. Certainly, if South doubled, North was forced to pass, and E-W had nowhere to go, L23 would apply if E-W were damaged, since South got to make a penalty double of 1D that he wouldn't have had available normally. I'd like to see others' comments about what conditions would have to be present for L23 to apply; I'm really not clear on this. > As N-S normaly play 2D as Michael (S + H), does N is then > authorized to "know" that 2D is likely natural after such an > infraction? I believe so. North is entitled to the information that he's barred for one round, and that South knows that North is barred. Thus, North is entitled to draw the inference that South's 2D is natural. However, South's original 1D call is UI for North. This means that North must assume that South's 2D natural bid is the sort of bid he would make if they were playing natural 2D overcalls over 1D. Thus, it would require, most likely, a good 6-card suit or a very good 5 (certainly, bidding a suit the opponents have already shown with anything less than this would be insane). North is not entitled to know that South could have a mundane 1D opening on a random 4-card suit. Therefore, if North pulled the double with a hand that might have passed a *good* natural overcall, he's taking advantage of UI, and the pull would be disallowed. > IWhat is your ruling if N has 4 Ss and 1 D and finaly P > ((2DX makes but 2S would go down 1) ? In the actual case, where North did not pull the double, no UI laws were violated. Thus, if L23 doesn't apply, the score stands. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 08:23:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CLKUW12778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:20:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CLKOt12774 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:20:25 +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 NAA03030; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:20:20 -0800 Message-Id: <200103122120.NAA03030@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:05:24 EST." <200103122105.QAA27336@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:20:19 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > On 12 March 2001 at 9:43, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > >Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > >> > But the players who actually want to play these methods are playing in > >> > events under EBU regs, so such a method legal in view of the following > >> > regulation, taken from the Orange book: > >> > > >> > 9.1.4 No convention is permitted whose sole benefit, > >> > or one of whose main benefits, is to deceive > >> > the opponents intentionally as to: > >> > > >> > - the length or strength of a suit, and/or > >> > - the strength of the hand held > >> > > >> > by the player making the call. > >> > > > > >Can someone provide an example of a convention that violates OB 9.1.4? > >I'm having trouble believing that it's possible. > > > This isn't official in any way (after all, I'm not even in the EBU), but > I would believe this regulation is attempting to ban (sorry, not permit > :-) things like the Suspensor 1M openings showing 6+ in the suit opened > OR 0-2 in the suit opened. How would this deceive the opponents, though? You open 1S showing 6+ or 0-2 spades. Partner alerts and explains the bid as showing 6+ or 0-2 spades. Where's the deception? -- 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 Mar 13 09:19:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CMJSj12838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:19:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CMJFt12826 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:19:16 +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 14caeh-0004ir-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:19:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:02:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <01030911363101.03606@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20010309153005.00b74420@127.0.0.1> <002901c0a8e5$cd36c630$5613f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >> I believe that people have a right, however, to know how their oppos >>are applying judgement. After all, you refer to an expert above, but >>Full disclosure applies to everyone. So people can ask and should be >>answered what form of valuation is used and how rigidly it is followed. > >And if a novice asks this question of an expert, will he understand >the answer? :-) Does it matter? Do you really think he will do so? The vast majority of bridge players are neither novices nor experts. I sometimes wonder whether people on this list realise that! -- 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 Mar 13 09:19:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CMJJL12830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:19:19 +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-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 f2CMJCt12823 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:19:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14caeh-0004iq-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:19:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:00:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability References: <200103112146.QAA24995@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200103112146.QAA24995@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 >OK, now I'll answer your question. I believe it's correct to ignore the >'inadvertent' in L17D. And I don't recall Tim's having said anything to >the contrary. He said that L17D did not apply, even though he expected that most TDs would apply it. That statement, and only that statement, is the one I disagree with strongly. -- 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 Mar 13 09:19:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CMJTW12839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:19:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CMJJt12831 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:19:20 +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 14caep-0004ip-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:19:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:05:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Double revoke MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 8 AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and -- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he -- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked 98 Q52 twice in hearts. 6 93 How do you rule? -- 43 -- 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 Mar 13 09:48:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CMm9B13287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:48:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CMm1t13250 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:48:02 +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 OAA05036; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:47:57 -0800 Message-Id: <200103122247.OAA05036@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:05:11 GMT." Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:47:56 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > 8 > AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. > Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and > -- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he > -- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked > 98 Q52 twice in hearts. > 6 > 93 How do you rule? > -- > 43 E-W get two tricks. This seems straightforward. South revoked on the HA, and later won a trick with a card (H3) he could have legally played to the revoke trick; therefore, the penalty is two tricks (L64A2). The second revoke generates no further penalty, because of L64B2. L64C doesn't apply, since the defense wouldn't have gotten more than one trick if the play had proceeded normally. So what's the catch? Is there a dispute about what a "revoke in the same suit" means? I believe it means failure to follow when the same suit is led; it doesn't mean that the card played illegally has to be the same suit as the previous card played illegally. -- 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 Mar 13 09:50:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CMns113887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:49:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CMnmt13852 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:49:48 +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 f2CMnhI16132 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:49:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312173731.00b8d1f0@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 Mar 2001 17:49:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:47 AM 3/12/01, Herman wrote: >A recent case, not involving revokes, illustrates my reasons >for believing this. > >NS have made an infraction (a small amount of MI) By a >convoluted argument, we might agree that without the >infraction, EW could have been in 5Di. At the table, NS are >in 5Sp. >The normal contract, without any infraction, is 4Sp, which >is easy for 10 tricks, and which makes with an overtrick at >the other table because it is hard to see that defenders >need to cash their three winners. >But at this table, opening leader cashes two winners and >then plays in ruff and discard, while he still has a third >winner >in hand. > >I concluded that EW were to blame for their own defensive >error. (a really awful error, believe me) >If we would have needed to correct to 4Sp making whatever, >we would probably correct to +450 anyway. > >But in this case there is a possible correction to 5DiX-2, >+300. >(I won't get into this - it was not clear at all, and I >ruled based on "no damage" so I can't really tell - but >let's assume it). > >+450 was not a "bad" score (it was a push - for the reason I >stated) but of course +300 was better for NOs. >However, through their own (really - egregious) error they >turned a potential -50 into a flat board. > >So I let the result stand. No damage. >Surely we understand that this was a correct ruling. I don't believe it is. What happened? N-S played in 5S. E-W, who could have had an easy +50, committed an egregious error to slop away their third trick, and scored -450 at the table. What would be "likely" to have happened had N-S not committed the infraction? Either of two things: (1) N-S might have played in 4S. There is no reason to believe that E-W would not have defended the same way against 4S as they did against 5S; we assume they'd have made the same error. E-W would have scored -450. (2) E-W might have played in 5D. It would have been impossible for them to make the same error declaring 5D that they made defending 5S; they perforce would not make it. They would have scored -300. There are two "likely" results for E-W: -450 and -300. L12C2 tells us to adjust the score to "the most favorable" of these. That looks to me like -300. WTP? Had 4S been the only likely contract absent the infraction, there would be no damage because, absent the infraction, E-W would have scored -450 instead of -450. But when E-W might have played in 5D absent the infraction, they might have scored -300 instead of -450, which looks like 150 points worth of damage to me. 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 Mar 13 10:00:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CMxr517394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:59:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CMxkt17355 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:59:47 +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 f2CMxhI16807 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:59:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312175425.00b8e660@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 Mar 2001 17:59:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:05 PM 3/12/01, David wrote: > 8 > AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and >-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >98 Q52 twice in hearts. > 6 > 93 How do you rule? > -- > 43 Declarer gets three of the last five tricks. Two-trick penalty for the HA revoke, no penalty for the HJ revoke; had declarer played HA, HJ, H5 without revoking the opponents could not have done better. Looks much too easy; I suspect David has laid a trap for us. 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 Mar 13 10:01:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CN1JH17889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:01:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f21.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2CN1Dt17861 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:01:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:01:05 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:01:05 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:01:05 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2001 23:01:05.0976 (UTC) FILETIME=[5180BB80:01C0AB48] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Eric Landau >At 07:19 PM 3/9/01, Todd wrote: >>If an equivalence relation existed between two systems, I'd agree (I >>don't find that one exists between rule of 20 and LTC), but as far as >>measuring error between them it might not be a matter of how often, >>but how jarringly. If you disagree about 2 hands out of a hundred >>(and agree about the 5 further below), but those 2 hands are: >>Qxxxxx Kxxxx Ax - >>AQ AQ AQ xxxxxxx >>is that more or less "the same system" as disagreeing about these 5 >>hands out of 100 being: >>Axxx Axx Axx Jxx >>AKx Axx xxx Jxxx >>KQx Kxx Qx Kxxxx >>QJx QJx QJx QJxx >>K Kxxx Kxxx KJxx >>and agreeing about the 2 futher above? > >I don't know, but I don't think it matters. In either case, the >question we should ask is whether, if the partnership bid differently >on the given hands based on their differing "pure judgments" rather >than their differing quantitative hand evaluation methods, we would >consider them to be playing the same system or not. We should get the same >answer in either case. I disagree. Intuitively I feel that the 5 latter hands are less important to that question, since opening or not opening them is more obviously based on judgement or style (to me) than the prior two. >My point is that the distinction between >using "pure judgment" and using (particularly multiple, which I believe >most experts do) quantitative evaluation methods can be a subtle one, with >many cases too close for a consensus call. Therefore any >reasonable "test" of "system sameness" can only be based on the extent >to which the partners might make different calls with the same hand on the >same auction, not on their reasons for doing so. What's the tolerance for error? My claim is that the extent is possibly not best measured by frequency or at least not frequency alone. Sorry if I was unclear. -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 Mar 13 10:09:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CN9fo18493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:09:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f99.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.99]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2CN9at18489 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:09:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:09:29 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:09:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:09:29 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2001 23:09:29.0376 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D8D7A00:01C0AB49] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > > 8 > AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and >-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >98 Q52 twice in hearts. > 6 > 93 How do you rule? > -- > 43 64B2, the second revoke garners no additional penalty. 64A1, the revoke trick and a subsequent one go to the opponents. Declarer gets only 3 of the last 5 tricks. -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 Mar 13 10:12:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CNCMi18510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:12:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f71.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2CNCGt18506 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:12:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:12:09 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:12:09 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:12:09 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2001 23:12:09.0635 (UTC) FILETIME=[DD130F30:01C0AB49] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >David Stevenson wrote: > > > 8 > > AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > > 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > > -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. > > Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and > > -- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he > > -- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked > > 98 Q52 twice in hearts. > > 6 > > 93 How do you rule? > > -- > > 43 > >E-W get two tricks. This seems straightforward. South revoked on the >HA, and later won a trick with a card (H3) he could have legally >played to the revoke trick; therefore, the penalty is two tricks >(L64A2). The second revoke generates no further penalty, because of >L64B2. L64C doesn't apply, since the defense wouldn't have gotten >more than one trick if the play had proceeded normally. 64A2 does not apply. Offending player won the revoke trick. >So what's the catch? Is there a dispute about what a "revoke in the >same suit" means? I believe it means failure to follow when the same >suit is led; it doesn't mean that the card played illegally has to be >the same suit as the previous card played illegally. > > -- Adam I'm also wary. -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 Mar 13 10:29:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CNTHC18525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:29:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CNTBt18521 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:29:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-002kslawrP332.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.110]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA13764 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:29:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200103121728520360.01BDA477@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:28:52 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > 8 > AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and >-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >98 Q52 twice in hearts. > 6 > 93 How do you rule? > -- > 43 Hm. Declarer later won two tricks in hand with hearts, so either two tricks or three tricks are transferred to the defenders (L64A2). The second revoke is not penalized -- L64B2. Absent the revokes, the defenders could expect one trick, so a two-trick penalty is sufficient to restore equity (L64C). It's not clear to me, reading L64A2, whether the defenders are entitled to simply two tricks -- one for the revoke, one for the trick won with the H9 -- or for the single revoke trick plus one additional trick for *each* additional trick declarer wins with a heart (H9 and H3). My first instinct was to say two, but upon reflection I'm not sure. 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 Mar 13 10:34:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CNYI118537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:34:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CNYBt18533 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:34:13 +1100 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:45:08 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087C83@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols Reply-To: David Stevenson To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:45:06 -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 The second revoke is in the same suit as the first. Since Declarer won a trick with a card he could have played on the revoke trick and the declarer's side won at least two tricks including and/or after the (first)revoke trick the penalty is two tricks. We do have to check if the actual damage is greater than two tricks, but it is not. If Declarer had followed suit to the revoke trick(s) the defenders would have scored one trick. The standard penalty is equal or greater, so no additional penalty. Am I missing something? Its not like David to pose such a (seemingly) simple problem. -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sent: 3/12/01 2:05 PM Subject: [BLML] Double revoke 8 AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and -- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he -- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked 98 Q52 twice in hearts. 6 93 How do you rule? -- 43 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 10:35:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CNYwY18549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:34:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2CNYqt18545 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:34:52 +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 PAA05879; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:34:48 -0800 Message-Id: <200103122334.PAA05879@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:47:46 +0100." <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:34:47 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > I know that the WBF have recently defined damage as the > difference between the table result and the expected result > absent the infraction. I'm not certain if it was their > intent to abolish the distinction between subsequent and > consequent damage, which seems to have at least some > foundation in the Laws. As I read the Code of Practice, they didn't abolish the distinction; rather, they defined it: # The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C2) is # appropriate when a violation of law causes damage to an innocent # side that has not damaged itself by irrational, wild or gambling # action subsequent to the infraction. Damage exists when, in # consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table # result less favourable than would have been the expectation in # the instant prior to the infraction. # # If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by # irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief # in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is # self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded # the score that it would have been allotted as the normal # consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side # subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again # the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard # to the revoke. Damage is "subsequent" as described by the above two paragraphs and "consequent" otherwise. I thought the CoP was supposed to be an "official" interpretation of the Laws; is it not? If so, it pretty clearly spells out what is considered damage, and even more clearly spells out what we do when the NO's revoke after the infraction; so I'm not clear on why there should be any debate. Or are we debating or whether the CoP should be changed? -- 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 Mar 13 10:37:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CNatp18561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:36:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail45.fg.online.no (mail45-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2CNamt18557 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:36:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from siri (ti34a11-0065.dialup.online.no [130.67.181.65]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA24691; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:36:36 +0100 (MET) From: "Tommy Sandsmark" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:35:18 +0100 Message-ID: <005101c0ab4d$18ebc530$0a646464@siri> 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 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There is no catch here. The play of the HJ establishes the revoke. The second revoke is free. The win of the H9 establishes the second losing trick (won by a card that could have been lawfully played to the revoke trick...) The only possible catch I can see is that the declarer may noe get as many as three tricks without the revoke. In that case the TD should rule the No. of tricks the declarer can get without the revoke, and let every possible doubt go in favor of the non-offensive side. As far as I can see, Declarer has 3 heart tricks and a diamond trick without the revoke, i.e. more than the 3 he gets. Thus: no catch. Tommy Tommy Sandsmark T.: 22 43 02 14 Bridge & Kryss F.: 22 43 42 99 Bygdøy Allé 73 B E.: xbridge@online.no 0268 Oslo Norway -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Todd Zimnoch Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 12:12 AM To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke >From: Adam Beneschan >David Stevenson wrote: > > > 8 > > AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > > 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > > -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. > > Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and > > -- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he > > -- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked > > 98 Q52 twice in hearts. > > 6 > > 93 How do you rule? > > -- > > 43 > >E-W get two tricks. This seems straightforward. South revoked on the >HA, and later won a trick with a card (H3) he could have legally >played to the revoke trick; therefore, the penalty is two tricks >(L64A2). The second revoke generates no further penalty, because of >L64B2. L64C doesn't apply, since the defense wouldn't have gotten >more than one trick if the play had proceeded normally. 64A2 does not apply. Offending player won the revoke trick. >So what's the catch? Is there a dispute about what a "revoke in the >same suit" means? I believe it means failure to follow when the same >suit is led; it doesn't mean that the card played illegally has to be >the same suit as the previous card played illegally. > > -- Adam I'm also wary. -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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 10:45:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CNjMr18580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:45:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f75.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2CNjGt18576 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:45:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:45:09 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:45:09 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:45:09 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2001 23:45:09.0794 (UTC) FILETIME=[79575820:01C0AB4E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There is a catch. Position after the first revoke is: > 8 > J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and >-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >8 Q52 twice in hearts. > -- > 93 How do you rule? > -- > 43 Had declarer not revoked the second time, declarer scores 4 tricks and returns two to the opponents. Declarer would only get 2 tricks without the benefit of the 2nd revoke. Apply 64C to this situation? -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 Mar 13 10:58:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CNvpK18595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:57:51 +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 f2CNvht18591 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:57:45 +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 PAA06362; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:57:39 -0800 Message-Id: <200103122357.PAA06362@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:12:09 PST." Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:57:38 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >From: Adam Beneschan > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > 8 > > > AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > > > 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > > > -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. > > > Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and > > > -- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he > > > -- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked > > > 98 Q52 twice in hearts. > > > 6 > > > 93 How do you rule? > > > -- > > > 43 > > > >E-W get two tricks. This seems straightforward. South revoked on the > >HA, and later won a trick with a card (H3) he could have legally > >played to the revoke trick; therefore, the penalty is two tricks > >(L64A2). The second revoke generates no further penalty, because of > >L64B2. L64C doesn't apply, since the defense wouldn't have gotten > >more than one trick if the play had proceeded normally. > > 64A2 does not apply. Offending player won the revoke trick. Not true. South is the offending player, and North won the trick. It's not clear what the term "player" means. The term isn't defined by the Laws, so there are two possible interpretations. One is that since dummy is no longer playing cards, he's not really a player. But I don't believe that interpretation is supported by the Laws. For instance, the definition of "Trick" is: # The unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, # regularly consisting of four cards, one contributed by each player # in rotation, beginning with the lead. and if there were only three players, the definition wouldn't make sense. Also, the use of the term throughout Law 44 makes sense only if there are four players, including dummy---note especially 44G: "The player who has won the trick leads to the next trick." Note also L45A: "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it ...". All of this clearly indicates that dummy is a separate "player", in the Laws, who is capable of winning a trick, even though he doesn't participate in the play. Thus, it's clear to me that North, not South, was the player who won the trick; and therefore it's L64A2, not L64A1, which applies. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 10:59:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2CNxWV18609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:59:32 +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 f2CNxPt18605 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:59:26 +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 PAA06431; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:59:21 -0800 Message-Id: <200103122359.PAA06431@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:28:52 CST." <200103121728520360.01BDA477@mail.earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:59:20 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: > It's not clear to me, reading L64A2, whether the defenders are entitled to > simply two tricks -- one for the revoke, one for the trick won with the H9 > -- or for the single revoke trick plus one additional trick for *each* > additional trick declarer wins with a heart (H9 and H3). My first instinct > was to say two, but upon reflection I'm not sure. L64A2 says "one such trick is transferred", not "each such trick is transferred." It's pretty clear to me. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 11:09:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D08wD18630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:08:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2D08qt18625 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:08:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp245-236.worldonline.nl [195.241.245.236]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 11B9236B28 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:08:47 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002401c0ab52$17bcefe0$ecf5f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:10:58 +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 Todd Zimnoch wrote : >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > 8 >> > AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the >> > 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. >> > -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >> > Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and >> > -- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >> > -- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >> > 98 Q52 twice in hearts. >> > 6 >> > 93 How do you rule? >> > -- >> > 43 >> >>E-W get two tricks. This seems straightforward. South revoked on the >>HA, and later won a trick with a card (H3) he could have legally >>played to the revoke trick; therefore, the penalty is two tricks >>(L64A2). The second revoke generates no further penalty, because of >>L64B2. L64C doesn't apply, since the defense wouldn't have gotten >>more than one trick if the play had proceeded normally. > >64A2 does not apply. Offending player won the revoke trick. > >>So what's the catch? Is there a dispute about what a "revoke in the >>same suit" means? I believe it means failure to follow when the same >>suit is led; it doesn't mean that the card played illegally has to be >>the same suit as the previous card played illegally. >> >> -- Adam > >I'm also wary. > This is a real cliffhanger: I have reached the same conclusion as the other posters : two tricks using L64A2 and L64B2, but I also smell a rat. However, I must go and get some sleep and be off to work after that, so it'll be another twenty-odd hours before I'll know what the catch is ... 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 Mar 13 12:05:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D14m718844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:04:48 +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-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 f2D14ct18791 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:04:42 +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 14cdEp-000Ouc-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:04:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:03:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > 8 > AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and >-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >98 Q52 twice in hearts. > 6 > 93 How do you rule? > -- > 43 > You've only revoked in one suit, one penalty. You won a trick with a card you could have played, and the revoke trick. 2 tricks transferred. wtp? are you getting senile? :)) -- 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 Mar 13 12:06:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D16BI19258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:06:11 +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 f2D15vt19184 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:05:58 +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 14cdG7-000PEm-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:05:55 +0000 Message-ID: <$LPbLIAqIXr6Ew$F@asimere.com> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:04:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Todd Zimnoch writes >>From: Adam Beneschan >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > 8 >> > AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the >> > 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. >> > -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >> > Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and >> > -- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >> > -- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >> > 98 Q52 twice in hearts. >> > 6 >> > 93 How do you rule? >> > -- >> > 43 >> >>E-W get two tricks. This seems straightforward. South revoked on the >>HA, and later won a trick with a card (H3) he could have legally >>played to the revoke trick; therefore, the penalty is two tricks >>(L64A2). The second revoke generates no further penalty, because of >>L64B2. L64C doesn't apply, since the defense wouldn't have gotten >>more than one trick if the play had proceeded normally. > >64A2 does not apply. Offending player won the revoke trick. No he didn't, his partner did. > >>So what's the catch? Is there a dispute about what a "revoke in the >>same suit" means? I believe it means failure to follow when the same >>suit is led; it doesn't mean that the card played illegally has to be >>the same suit as the previous card played illegally. >> >> -- Adam > >I'm also wary. > >-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/ -- 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 Mar 13 12:36:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D1Zks28697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:35:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2D1Zft28693 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:35:42 +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 MAA28741; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:35:36 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010313123523.014196f0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:35:24 +1100 To: "Hirsch Davis" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: [BLML] BLML mail loop problem Cc: "Steve Willner" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I've now toasted the 4 @rr.com addresses on blml. Two of them started reporting errors a couple of days before the weekend with (minor) delivery issues, but I didn't expect it to blow up into a loop - nor majordomo to let it through. I got plenty of bounces over the weekend from various mail services :-( If the 4 (actually 3) subscribers note they are no longer getting messages they can resubscribe - I haven't blocked the domain. However, they should have already seen they weren't getting messages. I'm not quite sure what caused the loop - it didn't look like a user-specific forwarding loop. Sorry for the delay - we had a public holiday yesterday (Monday) and I took a long weekend off :-) Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Faculty of Engineering and IT, | Ph: +61 2 61258810 email: markus.buchhorn@anu.edu.au, mail: CSIT Bldg #108 |Fax: +61 2 61250010 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 ** Note new address and phone numbers ** -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 13:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D234i28729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:03:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (smtp1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2D22wt28724 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:02:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p419-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.193.165]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id PAA04697 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:02:56 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p419-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.193.165] claimed to be tripack.ihug.co.nz Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010313145328.00a06950@pop3.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop3.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:00:44 +1300 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: patrick carter Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >There is a catch. Position after the first revoke is: > >> 8 >> J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the >> 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. >> -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >>Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and >>-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >>-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >>8 Q52 twice in hearts. >> -- >> 93 How do you rule? >> -- >> 43 >Had declarer not revoked the second time, declarer scores 4 tricks and >returns two to the opponents. Declarer would only get 2 tricks without >the benefit of the 2nd revoke. Apply 64C to this situation? This is not a situation that declarer needs to revoke a 2nd time to get out of jail. Simply playing the 9H under the Jack avoids winning a heart trick in the South hand at all. Declarer makes only 4 tricks, but the penalty is only 1. Even if South's hearts were 98 this would be the case as the trump can be cashed from dummy first discarding a heart and leading to 4 tricks minus a one trick penalty. Patrick Carter Auckland New Zealand >-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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 13:05:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D25BT28741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:05:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2D254t28737 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:05:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-75-47.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.75.47]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA25756; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:04:30 GMT Message-ID: <000901c0ab62$16edc5c0$2f4b063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <01030911363101.03606@psa836><4.3.2.7.1.20010309153005.00b74420@127.0.0.1><002901c0a8e5$cd36c630$5613f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:04:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott " Such laboured nothings in so strange a style Amaze th' unlearn'd, and make the learned smile," ~ Alexander Pope. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Reppert To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 2:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > > I believe that people have a right, however, > > to know how their oppos are applying judgement. > < After all, you refer to an expert above, but Full > > disclosure applies to everyone. So people can > > ask and should be answered what form of > > valuation is used and how rigidly it is followed. > +=+ If a player uses the losing trick count for the valuation of his hand, that is systemic. It is methodical and not an exercise of judgement. An exercise of judgement occurs when he values the hand in a way that does not match the valuation prescribed by the system. Some subscribers to blml would like to think they are using judgement when they base calls on LTC, but LTC is formulaic and in applying the formula no judgement is required but only an ability to count, add and subtract. LTC is a different method from Milton Work count, within the meaning of 'method' in Law 40E. ~ 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 Mar 13 17:28:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D6Rh005843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:27:43 +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 f2D6Rbt05835 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:27:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:21:28 -0800 Message-ID: <00a901c0ab86$4e7483c0$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312173731.00b8d1f0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:24:30 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > At 10:47 AM 3/12/01, Herman wrote: > > >A recent case, not involving revokes, illustrates my reasons > >for believing this. > > > >NS have made an infraction (a small amount of MI) By a > >convoluted argument, we might agree that without the > >infraction, EW could have been in 5Di. At the table, NS are > >in 5Sp. > >The normal contract, without any infraction, is 4Sp, which > >is easy for 10 tricks, and which makes with an overtrick at > >the other table because it is hard to see that defenders > >need to cash their three winners. > >But at this table, opening leader cashes two winners and > >then plays in ruff and discard, while he still has a third > >winner > >in hand. > > > >I concluded that EW were to blame for their own defensive > >error. (a really awful error, believe me) > >If we would have needed to correct to 4Sp making whatever, > >we would probably correct to +450 anyway. > > > >But in this case there is a possible correction to 5DiX-2, > >+300. > >(I won't get into this - it was not clear at all, and I > >ruled based on "no damage" so I can't really tell - but > >let's assume it). > > > >+450 was not a "bad" score (it was a push - for the reason I > >stated) but of course +300 was better for NOs. > >However, through their own (really - egregious) error they > >turned a potential -50 into a flat board. > > > >So I let the result stand. No damage. > >Surely we understand that this was a correct ruling. > > I don't believe it is. What happened? N-S played in 5S. E-W, who > could have had an easy +50, committed an egregious error to slop away > their third trick, and scored -450 at the table. What would be > "likely" to have happened had N-S not committed the infraction? Either > of two things: (1) N-S might have played in 4S. There is no reason to > believe that E-W would not have defended the same way against 4S as > they did against 5S; we assume they'd have made the same error. E-W > would have scored -450. (2) E-W might have played in 5D. It would > have been impossible for them to make the same error declaring 5D that > they made defending 5S; they perforce would not make it. They would > have scored -300. > > There are two "likely" results for E-W: -450 and -300. L12C2 tells us > to adjust the score to "the most favorable" of these. That looks to me > like -300. WTP? The problem is that the WBFLC has ruled that "damage" in this case applies only to the OS, not to the NOS, who shot themselves in the foot. Redress per L12C2 is not merely modified in such cases, it is *annulled*. > Had 4S been the only likely contract absent the infraction, there would > be no damage because, absent the infraction, E-W would have scored -450 > instead of -450. But when E-W might have played in 5D absent the > infraction, they might have scored -300 instead of -450, which looks > like 150 points worth of damage to me. The OS was given a gift of +50 points, but threw it away. They were not damaged at all as a consequence of the infraction, which actually did them a favor. For them, no adjustment. +300 for the OS, -450 for the NOS. 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 Mar 13 17:36:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D6aJt06127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:36:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2D6aDt06119 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:36:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:32:38 -0800 Message-ID: <00c001c0ab87$dde54a20$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312173731.00b8d1f0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:24:30 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > At 10:47 AM 3/12/01, Herman wrote: > > >A recent case, not involving revokes, illustrates my reasons > >for believing this. > > > >NS have made an infraction (a small amount of MI) By a > >convoluted argument, we might agree that without the > >infraction, EW could have been in 5Di. At the table, NS are > >in 5Sp. > >The normal contract, without any infraction, is 4Sp, which > >is easy for 10 tricks, and which makes with an overtrick at > >the other table because it is hard to see that defenders > >need to cash their three winners. > >But at this table, opening leader cashes two winners and > >then plays in ruff and discard, while he still has a third > >winner > >in hand. > > > >I concluded that EW were to blame for their own defensive > >error. (a really awful error, believe me) > >If we would have needed to correct to 4Sp making whatever, > >we would probably correct to +450 anyway. > > > >But in this case there is a possible correction to 5DiX-2, > >+300. > >(I won't get into this - it was not clear at all, and I > >ruled based on "no damage" so I can't really tell - but > >let's assume it). > > > >+450 was not a "bad" score (it was a push - for the reason I > >stated) but of course +300 was better for NOs. > >However, through their own (really - egregious) error they > >turned a potential -50 into a flat board. > > > >So I let the result stand. No damage. > >Surely we understand that this was a correct ruling. > > I don't believe it is. What happened? N-S played in 5S. E-W, who > could have had an easy +50, committed an egregious error to slop away > their third trick, and scored -450 at the table. What would be > "likely" to have happened had N-S not committed the infraction? Either > of two things: (1) N-S might have played in 4S. There is no reason to > believe that E-W would not have defended the same way against 4S as > they did against 5S; we assume they'd have made the same error. E-W > would have scored -450. (2) E-W might have played in 5D. It would > have been impossible for them to make the same error declaring 5D that > they made defending 5S; they perforce would not make it. They would > have scored -300. > > There are two "likely" results for E-W: -450 and -300. L12C2 tells us > to adjust the score to "the most favorable" of these. That looks to me > like -300. WTP? The problem is that the WBFLC has ruled that "damage" in this case applies only to the OS, not to the NOS, who shot themselves in the foot. Redress per L12C2 is not merely modified in such cases, it is *annulled*. > Had 4S been the only likely contract absent the infraction, there would > be no damage because, absent the infraction, E-W would have scored -450 > instead of -450. But when E-W might have played in 5D absent the > infraction, they might have scored -300 instead of -450, which looks > like 150 points worth of damage to me. The OS was given a gift of +50 points, but threw it away. They were not damaged at all as a consequence of the infraction, which actually did them a favor. For them, no adjustment. +300 for the OS, -450 for the NOS. 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 Mar 13 18:05:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D74uO07020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:04:56 +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 f2D74nt07014 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:04:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:01:11 -0800 Message-ID: <00d901c0ab8b$db3a2a80$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <200103122334.PAA05879@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:00:22 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > I know that the WBF have recently defined damage as the > > difference between the table result and the expected result > > absent the infraction. I'm not certain if it was their > > intent to abolish the distinction between subsequent and > > consequent damage, which seems to have at least some > > foundation in the Laws. > > As I read the Code of Practice, they didn't abolish the distinction; > rather, they defined it: > > # The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C2) is > # appropriate when a violation of law causes damage to an innocent > # side that has not damaged itself by irrational, wild or gambling > # action subsequent to the infraction. Damage exists when, in > # consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table > # result less favourable than would have been the expectation in > # the instant prior to the infraction. > # > # If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by > # irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief > # in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is > # self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded > # the score that it would have been allotted as the normal > # consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side > # subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again > # the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard > # to the revoke. > > Damage is "subsequent" as described by the above two paragraphs and > "consequent" otherwise. > > I thought the CoP was supposed to be an "official" interpretation of > the Laws; is it not? It is not. The CoP was not issued by the WBFLC, which is the sole authority for writing and interpreting the Laws. The CoP (Code of Practice for Appeals Committees) is an optional document for NCBOs and ZAs, which they can either follow or ignore. Here is what Grattan wrote: ######### The WBFLC has the responsibility for the international code of laws; it decided to make no change in the laws for the present and probably until 2005. The Code of Practice Group established with Executive authority had decided (a) to introduce a new procedure for WBF appeals, and (b) to promulgate to all member NCBOs its Code of Practice with the hope expressed that they will adopt it. How they do this, gradual introduction from the top down being likely, is a matter for the NCBOs and the Zones. (I say 'how'; this includes 'whether'.) ########## The current offical interpretation of L12C2 in regard to subsequent/consequent damage stands as stated by the WBFLC in Lille, 1998. It can be viewed on David Stevenson's website (www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm). Redress for the NOS is either granted in full or annulled completely, with no compromise suggested. 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 Mar 13 18:34:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D7YFW07934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:34:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f78.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2D7Y9t07927 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:34:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:34:02 -0800 Received: from 172.140.144.61 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:34:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.140.144.61] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:34:01 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Mar 2001 07:34:02.0180 (UTC) FILETIME=[F98CC840:01C0AB8F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: patrick carter >This is not a situation that declarer needs to revoke a 2nd time to get out >of jail. >Simply playing the 9H under the Jack avoids winning a heart trick in the >South >hand at all. Declarer makes only 4 tricks, but the penalty is only 1. > >Even if South's hearts were 98 this would be the case as the trump can be >cashed from dummy first discarding a heart and leading to 4 tricks minus >a one trick penalty. But the play will not occur; we'll have to reconstruct what could have happened and it could have gone wrong. In anycase, I think this is the catch. -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 Mar 13 18:55:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D7tFc08917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:55:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2D7t7t08869 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:55:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-57-40.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.57.40]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA11840; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:54:30 GMT Message-ID: <003201c0ab92$fcaf5da0$28397bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Adam Beneschan" , "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <200103122334.PAA05879@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:54:01 -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 " Such laboured nothings in so strange a style Amaze th' unlearn'd, and make the learned smile," ~ Alexander Pope. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Bridge Laws Cc: Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > I know that the WBF have recently defined damage as the > > difference between the table result and the expected > > result absent the infraction. I'm not certain if it was their > > intent to abolish the distinction between subsequent and > > consequent damage, which seems to have at least some > > foundation in the Laws. > > As I read the Code of Practice, they didn't abolish the distinction; rather, they defined it: > ------------ \x/ ----------- > > Damage is "subsequent" as described by the above > two paragraphs and "consequent" otherwise. > > I thought the CoP was supposed to be an "official" > interpretation of the Laws; is it not? If so, it pretty > clearly spells out what is considered damage, and > even more clearly spells out what we do when the > NO's revoke after the infraction; so I'm not clear on > why there should be any debate. Or are we debating > or whether the CoP should be changed? > > -- Adam vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +=+ Possibly the better way to express this is to say that the CoP states the way in which WBF considers that the interpretation of law found in item 2 of the WBFLC minutes of 30th August, 1998 (Lille) is to be applied. I do think there is a discussion to be held in the Laws drafting subcommittee on the treatment of NO's revoke; we need to remove any scope for argument. Consequent damage is damage resulting from the infraction/irregularity for which the NOS is entitled to indemnity. Subsequent damage is damage occurring after the irregularity but not resulting from the violation, the cause of it being attributed to the irrational, wild or gambling action of the NOS. The OS loses any advantage gained in the table score from either consequent or subsequent damage to the NOS; the latter is entitled to redress only for damage which is consequent. The minute says this plainly enough. An advantage in the table score is not damage if it is obtained solely by the good play of the OS, and is not related to the irregularity. The minute of 1998 is a binding interpretation of the law and involves, as it says, a redefinition and a change from previous interpretations. ~ 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 Mar 13 20:14:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D99pL13938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:09:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2D99ft13930 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:09:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-1.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.1]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2D99Fi24688 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:09:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AACF57F.634280EC@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:12:47 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML], subsequent foul hasn't happened, was:Just checking References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <3AA20459.905C6A7C@village.uunet.be> <3AA37030.D68E7A99@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010312125558.0086f100@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 12:00 10/03/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >I still find it hard to accept that someone who revokes gets > >away with it. > > AG : just one little subtelty : if West, in the initial example, had been > lawful & ethic, North wouldn't have found himself defending the contract. > Assume North is some guy who often panics in defense. He would strive to > have his side play the contract, and if this is denied to him by an opp's > infraction, he is put into the bad conditions directly by the infraction. > And, yes, the lack of time due to the TD call (which is also West's fault) > could contribue to North's negligence. > To put it shortly, West's infraction is partly the cause of North's > revoke. One could assume that, without the infraction, the revoke would not > have happened. This is especially true if North was bound to become dummy. > The motto should not be 'if he revokes, shoot him' (after all, the > infraction is less serious than the use uf UI, because it is surely not > intentional), but 'restore the result as it would have been before the > first infraction'. Who would dare pretend the revoke would have happened at > a normal contract ? > OK, let's throw out the whole subsequent damage then ! > To Herman specifically : if you are caught lbw on a 'no ball', you are > *not* out. Not a good example, I'm afraid. The Laws of cricket specifically state this. They even explicitely allow for a double shot, by going for a wild and gambling (even irrational) swing and try for a six. > To everybody : tackling from behind a man who is offside would *not* create a penalty. Not a good example either. I've seen red cards already ! Play ceases after the football referee whistles for off-side. All subsequent card play is irrelevant and the tackler must repeat his claim statement. While the cricket laws state that after the umpire signals a no-ball, play continues and the batsman can still be out in a number of ways (run-out, hitting the ball twice and handled the ball, IIRC) > > In those cases, they get away with it. > It must be clear that examples from other sports will not help us. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 20:53:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2D9r8e15281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:53:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2D9r2t15275 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:53:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010313095258.TWDP17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]>; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 22:52:58 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Grattan Endicott" CC: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 9:53:56 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010313095258.TWDP17343171.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:04:45 -0000 > To: "Bridge Laws" , > "Ed Reppert" > Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > > Grattan Endicott <=> > " Such laboured nothings in so strange a style > Amaze th' unlearn'd, and make the learned smile," > ~ Alexander Pope. > <==--==> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ed Reppert > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 2:46 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > > > > > > I believe that people have a right, however, > > > to know how their oppos are applying judgement. > > < After all, you refer to an expert above, but Full > > > disclosure applies to everyone. So people can > > > ask and should be answered what form of > > > valuation is used and how rigidly it is followed. > > > +=+ If a player uses the losing trick count for > the valuation of his hand, that is systemic. It > is methodical and not an exercise of judgement. > An exercise of judgement occurs when he values > the hand in a way that does not match the > valuation prescribed by the system. > Some subscribers to blml would like to think > they are using judgement when they base calls > on LTC, but LTC is formulaic and in applying the > formula no judgement is required but only an > ability to count, add and subtract. The judgement could be to use LTC as opposed to some other form of evaluation. Law 40 tells me that the SO cannot prohibit me from applying that judgement. >LTC is a > different method from Milton Work count, within > the meaning of 'method' in Law 40E. I rarely if ever discuss with partner the details of hand evaluation when agreeing to play a particular system. I guess there is an implied agreement to use something commonly called points when we say 12-14 1nt - although on a recent long trip i suggested that we describe this bid as around 13-14 points allowing for the variation in judgement. When playing seriously with a new partner I usually add that I am very conservative compared with other players when opening balanced hands. I say I will often downgrade hands - pass 12 counts; open 1nt on 15 etc. I do not tell them how I judge to downgrade, although I might say that I will always have a reason. I consider we are both playing 12-14 nt but we judge differently which hands are worth 12-14 points. My style is to downgrade hands that others wouldn't. My judgement is to downgrade hands that others wouldn't. The laws give me this absolute right. Those things, style and judgement *must not* be regulated against. Only those parts of the system or method that are not related to either partner's own style or judgement can be forced to be the same. If our method of evaluation was forced to be the same then we would become automatons all ( who play the same system ) bidding the same way. Count me as one whose enjoyment of the game would be severely diminished if this was to be. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > -- > Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North Ph 64 6 355 1259 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 21:37:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DAbNe16597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:37:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DAb0t16574 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:37:01 +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 14cmAh-000Nf6-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:36:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:06:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> <200103122105.QAA27336@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200103122105.QAA27336@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother writes >On 12 March 2001 at 9:43, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >>Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >>> > But the players who actually want to play these methods are playing in >>> > events under EBU regs, so such a method legal in view of the following >>> > regulation, taken from the Orange book: >>> > >>> > 9.1.4 No convention is permitted whose sole benefit, >>> > or one of whose main benefits, is to deceive >>> > the opponents intentionally as to: >>> > >>> > - the length or strength of a suit, and/or >>> > - the strength of the hand held >>> > >>> > by the player making the call. >>> > >> >>Can someone provide an example of a convention that violates OB 9.1.4? >>I'm having trouble believing that it's possible. >> >This isn't official in any way (after all, I'm not even in the EBU), but >I would believe this regulation is attempting to ban (sorry, not permit >:-) things like the Suspensor 1M openings showing 6+ in the suit opened >OR 0-2 in the suit opened. They are not permitted anyway. >But I wonder where the line should be drawn. Does a two-way Club count >(10-12 balanced or 17+, say)? Either/or clubs were permitted at Level 4 from the last Orange book. > How about Wonder bid defences to strong >Clubs? How about the situation in question? Any defence is permitted to artificial openings - except as covered by 9.1.4 and 9.1.5. >Frankly, I see no advantage in this "random minors" method over opening >1D with all balanced hands outside NT ranges or unbalanced hands >with diamonds. Ok, so the opponents know that a club call is real(ish). > >Also, 9.1.5 starts "You may not have an agreement to make random calls, >including overcalls." I think this is for 1S "13 cards" overcalls of >strong Clubs and such, but may have a bearing on the question, depending >on what OB means by "random". -- 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 Mar 13 21:37:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DAbOh16598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:37:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2DAb0t16576 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:37:01 +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 14cmAh-000Nf8-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:36:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:44:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@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 >L16A2: "... if an infraction of law has resulted in damage" > >Nothing about consequent or subsequent - but "resulted in" >seems to me to imply a link between the infraction and the >damage. > >L40C: ".. a side has been damaged through (MI)..." > >Again a reference ("through") to some link between >infraction and damage. OK, that's the basis for the whole subsequent/consequent thing. >- One definition included "wild, gambling or irrational". > >- The EBU changed that definition to "Wild or Gambling". That is not true. The WBF, EK and other authorities decided on "wild or gambling" and that was the standard for many years. Recently the WBF decided to amend this definition but the EBU did not accept the current change. >But none of these happenings changed one letter to the >original Laws, and these still talk about a link between >infraction and damage. Which requires interpretation, which is not consistent around the world. >Jerry pointed out that sometimes an infraction causes >confusion and thence a revoke; a point well taken, but >hardly a convincing argument. OK, but it convinces many of us. You seem to like penalising non- offenders: I don'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 Mar 13 21:37:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DAbDp16591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:37:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DAb0t16575 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:37:01 +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 14cmAh-000Nf7-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:36:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:04:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200103121743.JAA31342@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 >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> > But the players who actually want to play these methods are playing in >> > events under EBU regs, so such a method legal in view of the following >> > regulation, taken from the Orange book: >> > >> > 9.1.4 No convention is permitted whose sole benefit, >> > or one of whose main benefits, is to deceive >> > the opponents intentionally as to: >> > >> > - the length or strength of a suit, and/or >> > - the strength of the hand held >> > >> > by the player making the call. >> > >> >> The bid is not deceptive if it is correctly explained - it just does >> not give any information about relative minor lengths when opener >> turns up with a balanced hand. > >That was my first thought upon reading the OB quote. In fact, I have >to question whether there can be such a thing as a "convention whose >sole benefit is to deceive the opponents . . .". It seems >tautologically impossible. All conventions must be explained >correctly when asked, and AFAIK the alert rules in every jurisdiction >mean that if a bid unexpectedly does not show something in the bid >suit, there will be an Alert, so that the opponents will not be able >to assume that it shows the suit. Thus, if there's any "deception" >going on, it would be because of MI, not because of the convention >itself. > >It's certainly possible to come up with a convention that *conceals* >information about the length or strength of a suit or about the >strength of a hand. I cannot believe the OB intended to ban such >conventions. It's also possible for a convention to make it safer to >psych in some situations. For example, the old-fashioned way of >playing strong jump shifts was, I think, that opener would respond in >notrump to announce that the opening bid was a psych. That would >prevent responder from driving to slam with his 19-count. A >convention like that is called a "psychic control" and is illegal in >the ACBL. However, the 9.1.4 wording doesn't seem to be about this >type of bid, since it speaks of the convention itself deceiving the >opponents, rather than a convention making it safe for a prior bid to >deceive the opponents. In any case, I don't think the "random minor" >discussion is about a psychic control anyway, unless I'm missing >something. > >Can someone provide an example of a convention that violates OB 9.1.4? >I'm having trouble believing that it's possible. Well, the original problem came from a pair that was doing other things as well, but they played the following: 1NT - 2D forces 2H 1NT - 2D - 2H - Pass Signoff in hearts 2NT Game try with five spades 3NT To play, showing *nothing* about the majors whatever 1NT - 2H forces 2S 1NT - 2H - 2S - Pass Signoff in spades 2NT Game try with five hearts 3NT To play, showing *nothing* about the majors whatever The main gain came from people who did not ask. They did explain fully when asked. But whether the reg applies to random minors [or minors with a random type rule to decide which to open] is a matter of interpretation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 13 21:53:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DAqnr17056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:52:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DAqft17048 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:52:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-39-208.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.39.208]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA14357; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:52:06 GMT Message-ID: <000c01c0abab$88f838a0$d0277bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Marvin L. French" Cc: References: <200103122334.PAA05879@mailhub.irvine.com> <00d901c0ab8b$db3a2a80$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:50:35 -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 Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Cc: Sent: 13 March 2001 07:00 Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again > > > The current offical interpretation of L12C2 in regard to > subsequent/consequent damage stands as stated by > the WBFLC in Lille, 1998. It can be viewed on David > Stevenson's website (www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf _lcmn.htm). Redress for the NOS is either granted in full > or annulled completely, with no compromise suggested. > +=+ The NOS is entitled to redress for consequent damage but not for subsequent damage. I do not understand this reference to 'annulled completely', and I think Marv maybe sees words that are not there. No WBF source has talked of complete annulment, only refusal of redress for damage resulting from irrational, wild or gambling subsequent action by the NOS. They retain their basic entitlement to indemnity to the extent of the consequent damage. The Code of Practice is the approved WBF statement as to how the interpretation is implemented by appeals committees (and Directors). ~ 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 Mar 13 23:02:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DC1TO04583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:01:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DC1Lt04575 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:01:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA21376; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:00:58 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA20979; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:00:56 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010313130340.007d7e20@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 Mar 2001 13:03:40 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31A2 (BOOT in denomination of legal opener) Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200103122118.NAA02978@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 13:18 12/03/01 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> South opens 1D, East being the dealer. TD is called. West does not >> accept the BOOT and auction reverts to East who now opens 1D. >> TD then offers options of Law 31A2: if the offender: >> >> a) repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, (penalty) >> offender'r partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. >> >> b) does not repeat..... offender's partner must pass whenever it >> is his turn to call. >> >> South chooses a) and bid 2D. The auction goes: >> >> E S W N >> 1D 2D P P (mandatory) >> X P P ? >> > >Right. L31 doesn't make any provisions for bids that "would have been >conventional." However, L23 might apply, if it allows N-S to play in >a conventional bid that might not have been available to them >otherwise. I'm not certain whether that would apply here. Certainly, >if South doubled, North was forced to pass, and E-W had nowhere to go, >L23 would apply if E-W were damaged, since South got to make a penalty >double of 1D that he wouldn't have had available normally. I'd like >to see others' comments about what conditions would have to be present >for L23 to apply; I'm really not clear on this. AG : the penalty double would not have stood, L23. Here, it is necessary that we allow the 2D bid. Else East would only have to psyche to make it impossible for N/S to play in that suit. This is not what the lawmakers intended. >> As N-S normaly play 2D as Michael (S + H), does N is then >> authorized to "know" that 2D is likely natural after such an >> infraction? > >I believe so. North is entitled to the information that he's barred >for one round, and that South knows that North is barred. Thus, North >is entitled to draw the inference that South's 2D is natural. AG : that's a fine way out of the problem. For South to make an artificial bid facing a barred partner would be so absurd that his intention is obvious. Of course, if there was no natural diamond opening in N/S's system, the problem would be allochromohippic. >However, South's original 1D call is UI for North. This means that >North must assume that South's 2D natural bid is the sort of bid he >would make if they were playing natural 2D overcalls over 1D. Thus, >it would require, most likely, a good 6-card suit or a very good 5 >(certainly, bidding a suit the opponents have already shown AG : unless they haven't shown it. Easst could well be psyching. 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 Mar 13 23:58:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DCvx006034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:57:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DCvqt06026 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:57:52 +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 f2DCvma46921 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:57:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313073805.00b8e1f0@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 Mar 2001 07:57:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31A2 (BOOT in denomination of legal opener) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:38 PM 3/12/01, Laval_DEBREUIL wrote: >South opens 1D, East being the dealer. TD is called. West does not >accept the BOOT and auction reverts to East who now opens 1D. >TD then offers options of Law 31A2: if the offender: > >a) repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, (penalty) > offender'r partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. > >b) does not repeat..... offender's partner must pass whenever it > is his turn to call. > >South chooses a) and bid 2D. The auction goes: > > E S W N > 1D 2D P P (mandatory) > X P P ? > >Does Law 31A2 a) apply the same manner when legal opener >bid the suit of the BOOT and the offenders normaly play >the cue bid as conventional ? Law 31 seems to say yes. Yes. Whether the substituted bid is conventional matters only when correcting an insufficient bid; it does not matter for a BOOT. >As N-S normaly play 2D as Michael (S + H), does N is then >authorized to "know" that 2D is likely natural after such an >infraction? No. L16C2: "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action... is unauthorized." Here that information is that S had diamonds. >IWhat is your ruling if N has 4 Ss and 1 D and finaly P >((2DX makes but 2S would go down 1) ? It depends. The "correct" ruling is to adjust. We obviously can't tell from the above what we should adjust to; apparently 2S-1 is a "likely" outcome absent the (second, UI) infraction, but perhaps there are more favorable likely outcomes for E-W. But not so quickly. If the director simply "offer[ed the] options of L31A2" but failed to warn N-S that S's original 1D call would be treated as UI, I'd be worried that the TD's reading of the law misled N-S into committing the UI infraction thinking that N's basing his actions on S's original 1D was legal; it's hard to imagine that S would have chosen to bid 2D knowing that his partner would be required to respond to Michaels. If I believe that to be the case, I would feel compelled to rule under L82C, A+ to both sides. 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 Mar 14 00:05:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DD5LH06238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:05:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DD59t06229 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:05:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.162.242] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14coU3-0005SV-00; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:05:03 +0000 Message-ID: <001e01c0abbe$242c68c0$f2a201d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:04:27 -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: > >But none of these happenings changed one letter to the > >original Laws, and these still talk about a link between > >infraction and damage. > > Which requires interpretation, which is not consistent around the > world. Which is, of course, a thoroughly splendid state of affairs. > >Jerry pointed out that sometimes an infraction causes > >confusion and thence a revoke; a point well taken, but > >hardly a convincing argument. > > OK, but it convinces many of us. You seem to like penalising non- > offenders: I don't. It's not a question of penalising non-offenders. It's a question of not allowing people to play cost-free ridiculous bridge simply because their opponents have committed an infraction. If a player revokes, then he is penalised for the revoke, and should not expect to avoid being penalised for it simply because he would not have had the opportunity to do it if the infraction had not occurred. 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 Mar 14 00:21:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DDLKn11180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:21:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DDLCt11141 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:21:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2DDL8T67004 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:21:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313080545.00b7dda0@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 Mar 2001 08:21:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31A2 (BOOT in denomination of legal opener) In-Reply-To: <200103122118.NAA02978@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 04:18 PM 3/12/01, Adam wrote: >Laval Du Breuil wrote: > > > South opens 1D, East being the dealer. TD is called. West does not > > accept the BOOT and auction reverts to East who now opens 1D. > > TD then offers options of Law 31A2: if the offender: > > > > a) repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, (penalty) > > offender'r partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. > > > > b) does not repeat..... offender's partner must pass whenever it > > is his turn to call. > > > > South chooses a) and bid 2D. The auction goes: > > > > E S W N > > 1D 2D P P (mandatory) > > X P P ? > > > > As N-S normaly play 2D as Michael (S + H), does N is then > > authorized to "know" that 2D is likely natural after such an > > infraction? > >I believe so. North is entitled to the information that he's barred >for one round, and that South knows that North is barred. Thus, North >is entitled to draw the inference that South's 2D is natural. > >However, South's original 1D call is UI for North. This means that >North must assume that South's 2D natural bid is the sort of bid he >would make if they were playing natural 2D overcalls over 1D. Thus, >it would require, most likely, a good 6-card suit or a very good 5 >(certainly, bidding a suit the opponents have already shown with >anything less than this would be insane). North is not entitled to >know that South could have a mundane 1D opening on a random 4-card >suit. Therefore, if North pulled the double with a hand that might >have passed a *good* natural overcall, he's taking advantage of UI, >and the pull would be disallowed. > > > IWhat is your ruling if N has 4 Ss and 1 D and finaly P > > ((2DX makes but 2S would go down 1) ? > >In the actual case, where North did not pull the double, no UI laws >were violated. Thus, if L23 doesn't apply, the score stands. My earlier reply to Laval's problem was over-hasty and incorrect. I had overlooked the fact that N's first pass was enforced (it does say so right in the bidding diagram, but it's early in the morning). This makes N "entitled" to "know" that S holds diamonds; information from the withdrawn 1D bid is UI, but N has AI to the same effect from the fact that S chose to bid 2D *knowing that N would be required to pass*. So my ruling was wrong; Adam's is correct. Despite being wrong, my previous reply did make a point worth repeating: When a TD makes a ruling under which the OS's subsequent actions will be constrained by L16C2, it is critical that he cite L16C when giving the ruling and explain its implications. 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 Mar 14 00:48:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DDmH113184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:48:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DDmAt13179 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:48:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2DDm1b03849 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:48:01 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:48 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - 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: <00a901c0ab86$4e7483c0$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > The OS was given a gift of +50 points, but threw it away. They were not > damaged at all as a consequence of the infraction, which actually did > them a favor. For them, no adjustment. +300 for the OS, -450 for the > NOS. The thing that confuses me about this situation is how there was an infraction. IOW how can UI suggest that 5S is better than doubling (or making a forcing pass of) 5D when it quite obviously isn't - and won't be even if you place the opposing cards more favourably for NOS in 4S. 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 Mar 14 01:12:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DEC2T13801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:12:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DEBtt13794 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:11:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2DEBpT70288 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:11:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313083457.00abbea0@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 Mar 2001 09:11:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:01 PM 3/12/01, Todd wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >>At 07:19 PM 3/9/01, Todd wrote: >>>If an equivalence relation existed between two systems, I'd agree (I >>>don't find that one exists between rule of 20 and LTC), but as far as >>>measuring error between them it might not be a matter of how often, >>>but how jarringly. If you disagree about 2 hands out of a hundred >>>(and agree about the 5 further below), but those 2 hands are: >>>Qxxxxx Kxxxx Ax - >>>AQ AQ AQ xxxxxxx >>>is that more or less "the same system" as disagreeing about these 5 >>>hands out of 100 being: >>>Axxx Axx Axx Jxx >>>AKx Axx xxx Jxxx >>>KQx Kxx Qx Kxxxx >>>QJx QJx QJx QJxx >>>K Kxxx Kxxx KJxx >>>and agreeing about the 2 futher above? >> >>I don't know, but I don't think it matters. In either case, the >>question we should ask is whether, if the partnership bid differently >>on the given hands based on their differing "pure judgments" rather >>than their differing quantitative hand evaluation methods, we would >>consider them to be playing the same system or not. We should get >>the same answer in either case. > >I disagree. Intuitively I feel that the 5 latter hands are less >important to that question, since opening or not opening them is more >obviously based on judgement or style (to me) than the prior two. The example hands aren't essential to Todd's argument, but they are illustrative of the kinds of close calls that would be required to decide, if we agree that it is appropriate to do so, whether partners' using different evaluation methods means that they're playing different systems. Let's contrast how these hands would be evaluated by players using either Goren point-count or LTC. The first two are opening bids in both methods. However, the first is a minimum in GPC but has extra values in LTC, while the second is a minimum in LTC but has extra values in GPC. The next four are balanced; as explained previously, losing-trick counters do not use LTC for balanced hands, so an LTCer would open those or not just as would a GPCer with similar style and judgment. The seventh is not an opening bid in either method (given that the partnership chooses to treat it as an unbalanced hand). Those are very close, leaving me wondering whether the contrast will ameliorate Todd's intuition that (even radically) different evaluation methods will generally lead to major differences in one's choice of actions. >>My point is that the distinction between >>using "pure judgment" and using (particularly multiple, which I believe >>most experts do) quantitative evaluation methods can be a subtle one, >>with many cases too close for a consensus call. Therefore any >>reasonable "test" of "system sameness" can only be based on the extent >>to which the partners might make different calls with the same hand >>on the same auction, not on their reasons for doing so. > > What's the tolerance for error? My claim is that the extent is > possibly not best measured by frequency or at least not frequency alone. >Sorry if I was unclear. I think Todd was clear, and he may well be right, but it's beside the point. Whatever the appropriate metric is, and whatever our tolerance for different actions according to that metric is, they determine whether or not the differences in the actions taken by the partnership are sufficient to lead to a determination that the partners are not using the same system; whether the differences result from different evaluation methods or different intutitive feelings -- whether the thought processes that led to the differences in their judgment of what to bid were inherently quantitative or qualitative -- shouldn't matter. 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 Mar 14 02:45:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DFigJ15962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 02:44:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.austin.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DFiZt15955 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 02:44:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:46:37 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:34:23 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26HNTU14479 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:23:30 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26GiAB22166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:44:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26GhVt22090 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:43:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26740; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:43:25 -0800 Message-Id: <200103061643.IAA26740@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:54:49 GMT." Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:43:24 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Pam Hadfield wrote: > On 06 March 2001 13:11, Eric Landau wrote: > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI > > > ..snip.. > > > > As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know > > what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect > > your own calls? > > Why on earth would anyone feel the need to ask these questions *during > the auction* when doing so might pass UI to partner or clarify the ops > system for them? Why on earth would anyone feel the need to adopt a practice---i.e. asking when you "need" to know and not asking when you don't need to know---that GUARANTEES passing UI to partner and gratuitous information to the opponents? If you adopt this practice, then all three opponents know that when you ask a question, you have something interesting; and conversely, all three opponents know that when you don't ask a question in a case where you're unlikely to know, then you don't have something interesting. Why on earth would anyone think this system is a better system for avoiding UI than "always asking"??!?!? -- 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 Mar 14 02:48:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DFm3G16054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 02:48:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DFlut16047 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 02:47:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:50:31 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:19:02 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26H7uU28833 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:07:56 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26GLbU19842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:21:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@loki.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26GLUt19838 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:21:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 14aKDF-0005Bq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 06 Mar 2001 16:21:25 +0000 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: RE: [BLML] MI & UI To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" In-Reply-To: Pam Hadfield's message of Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:54:49 -0000 Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 16:21:25 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > On 06 March 2001 13:11, Eric Landau wrote: > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI > > > ..snip.. > > > > As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know > > what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect > > your own calls? > > Why on earth would anyone feel the need to ask these questions *during > the auction* when doing so might pass UI to partner or clarify the ops > system for them? Surely those question would be more appropriate at the > end of the auctions before the opening lead - after all, isn't that why > we all say "any questions partner?" when we lead face down? > > Pam I wouldn't leave all questions until before the opening lead because I might want to enter the auction. I don't want to only ask questions when I might enter the auction because this gives opponents unfair (IMHO) information about my hand. I've long had serious reservations about sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of the Orange book (http://www.ebu.co.uk/ob9a.pdf). It seems to me that table prescence is a more valuable technique for a declarer playing under OB regulations than in other places. All you need do, as in a dispute that arose in a recent Gold Cup match, is play a legal but unusual system where a large % of your calls are alerted. Then wait for opponents to ask and draw the obvious conclusions. Why not raise your record on 2 way finesses to 75% or even more? You ask after three alerted bids and find opps are in an artificial game forcing sequence: Oops! You don't ask after 3 alerted bids and they've stolen the hand on a combined 16 count: Oops! I'm not by any means against unusual systems or convention experimentation, but there is a legimate problem here with full disclosure. And convention cards need only cover so much; transfer opener's rebids, responder's rebid relays and the like don't have any convenient boxes. Full system notes available to the opponents might solve the problem but are you really telling me that that will waste less time than asking randomly or all the time? --- I always wanted to be someone - I guess I should have been more specific -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 03:12:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DGCN118596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:12:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DGCGt18556 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:12:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:14:49 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:33:19 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26HMPU13260 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:22:25 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26GiAB22166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:44:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26GhVt22090 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:43:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26740; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:43:25 -0800 Message-Id: <200103061643.IAA26740@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:54:49 GMT." Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:43:24 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Pam Hadfield wrote: > On 06 March 2001 13:11, Eric Landau wrote: > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI > > > ..snip.. > > > > As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know > > what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect > > your own calls? > > Why on earth would anyone feel the need to ask these questions *during > the auction* when doing so might pass UI to partner or clarify the ops > system for them? Why on earth would anyone feel the need to adopt a practice---i.e. asking when you "need" to know and not asking when you don't need to know---that GUARANTEES passing UI to partner and gratuitous information to the opponents? If you adopt this practice, then all three opponents know that when you ask a question, you have something interesting; and conversely, all three opponents know that when you don't ask a question in a case where you're unlikely to know, then you don't have something interesting. Why on earth would anyone think this system is a better system for avoiding UI than "always asking"??!?!? -- 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 Mar 14 03:25:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DGPPc23306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:25:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DGPGt23270 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:25:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:27:13 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:15:38 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26JD0A11548 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:13:01 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26IeaM13770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26IeMt13712 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:22 +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 14aMNb-000B2g-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:40:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:37:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 References: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <200102222010.MAA08741@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes > I make no comment on Herman's comments, but as a matter of information >Herman made his comments based on what you have read, but without seeing >my comments or the L&EC's comments. He had no other source of >information. > > By the way, I should like to thank him for doing this. I asked for >volunteers in a number of places, I only got two, and the other one >failed to produce anything because of personal problems. I am very >pleased that Herman saved everyone from only seeing my comments! We have received many comments. It would not be suitable at this late stage to change the Commentary, of course, but a revised version will go up within 24 hours. The changes are: [1] Asking for feedback about the hands to go to the Editor not the L&EC Secretary [2] Correcting the suit symbols in Herman's comments [**] [3] Adding editorial notes to conventions not well known outside England [4] Adding a publishing history and copyright notice [5] Correcting the explanation of the relay in Case 6 [**] Herman used GillSansBridge which I do not have so his suit symbols appeared to me as [ ] { } and several got mis-translated. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 03:28:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DGSaX24457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:28:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DGSSt24412 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:28:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:29:50 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:16:41 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26J5kU30584 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:05:47 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26IeCu13644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Ie0t13583 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:01 +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 14aMNA-000LgP-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:39:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:00:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <001301c0a5d9$69d7a3c0$b72cfc3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001301c0a5d9$69d7a3c0$b72cfc3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes >I would be interested to know David, is the EBU L&EC well represented by >working TDs. It has been alleged that we have too many. Certainly Roy Higson said that working TDs should not be on it at all. But there are two TDs amongst seven elected members [David Martin and myself, both reading BLML]. One of the other members was a National TD many years ago [Steve Barnfield, former reader of BLML]. That leaves four others, Martin Pool, David Burn [both of them BLML readers] and Paul Spencer, Richard Fleet. The Chief TD of the EBU, Max Bavin, is an ex officio member. The other ex officio members are, I believe, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the EBU [the current incumbents do not attend]. I understand that board members and Vice-Presidents may attend: in practice this means Grattan Endicott [BLML reader] and Gerard Faulkner [who does not have email!!!!], both former L&EC Chairmen. I think three working TDs is enough, but even if it wasn't, *all* the other people mentioned are used as AC Chairmen. Of course the WBU L&EC contains 100% Working TDs! >I can understand players of varying standards being loathe to be so >dogmatic about regulating the disruption of just one convention in this >manner. However, I find it hard to believe that working TDs, as you and >I,and the rest of this group, are not so fed up with the problems it >creates as not to want to make any inability to handle it - illegal. I >would apply this to any 2 suited overcall, in any circumstance. >In the WBU National Open Pairs last week end, I had 4 "Ghestem gone >wrong" rulings, not all the same hand. They are so time consuming, so >difficult to get absolutely right, that we have got to the stage where >even the culprits are sufficiently embarrassed as to be very happy with >a short sharp 30%/60% next board please. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 03:30:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DGTux24923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:29:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DGTkt24880 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:29:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:31:04 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:50:28 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26HdYU31546 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:39:34 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26GxPZ24958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:59:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Gwpt24877 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:58:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA19258; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:49:43 +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 RAA29363; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:53:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010306175551.007cf100@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 Mar 2001 17:55:51 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306104628.00b5d570@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20010306155121.0082ed10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@127.0.0.1> <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:07 6/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >This may be a N.A.-Europe difference. I suspect from reading BLML that >Europeans are inclined more towards "ask only when you need to know", >which avoids giving potential false inferences to the opponents, while >Americans are inclined more towards "ask always" or "ask randomly", >which avoids giving UI in the form of such inferences to partner. Here >it would be considered rather peculiar to pre-alert, kind of like >warning the opponents not to take inferences from your attempts to keep >your tempo constant. AG : will you believe me, this I've already made. And I also believe in telling he opponents (only when it's true, of course) : 'my partner is a near-beginner. Don't take his/her tempi into account' A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 03:36:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DGaAn27117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:36:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DGa3t27078 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:36:03 +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 f2DGZwT84732 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:35:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313092901.00b8b7d0@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 Mar 2001 11:33:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <200103122334.PAA05879@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 06:34 PM 3/12/01, Adam wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > > > I know that the WBF have recently defined damage as the > > difference between the table result and the expected result > > absent the infraction. I'm not certain if it was their > > intent to abolish the distinction between subsequent and > > consequent damage, which seems to have at least some > > foundation in the Laws. > >As I read the Code of Practice, they didn't abolish the distinction; >rather, they defined it: > ># The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C2) is ># appropriate when a violation of law causes damage to an innocent ># side that has not damaged itself by irrational, wild or gambling ># action subsequent to the infraction. Damage exists when, in ># consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table ># result less favourable than would have been the expectation in ># the instant prior to the infraction. ># ># If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by ># irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief ># in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is ># self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded ># the score that it would have been allotted as the normal ># consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side ># subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again ># the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard ># to the revoke. > >Damage is "subsequent" as described by the above two paragraphs and >"consequent" otherwise. First a rant: Could we please be a bit more careful in our use of the English language? OK, BLML does need its own idiosyncratic "shorthand" to keep posts from being unduly long and repetitive, but when our shorthand strays too far from ordinary English we run the risk that it may eventually find its way into interpretations, or even rules, that will be read incorrectly or confusingly by folks who aren't privy to BLML's internal jargon. I leave others to judge whether the authors of the CoP have already fallen victim. Damage is "subsequent" (to an infraction) if it occurred after, as opposed to before, the infraction. Period. Subsequent damage may be either "consequent" (to the infraction, i.e. caused by it) or "self-inflicted" (caused not by the infraction, but rather by the action of the NOS). Self-inflicted damage may be either "egregiously self-inflicted" ("ESI", i.e. caused by an action of the NOS which was "an egregious error", or a "wild, gambling or irrational action", or whatever it takes in the relevant jurisdiction for the self-inflicted damage to affect the outcome of the adjudication) or "non-egregiously self-inflicted" ("NESI"). The CoP says that if all of the subsequent damage is either consequent or NESI, the NOs get redress for all of it. I expect we all agree that this is as it should be. But it also says that if the subsequent damage is a mix of consequent, NESI and ESI damage, the NOs get redress only for the consequent damage; the NESI baby gets thrown out with the ESI bathwater. Is this what the authors of the CoP intended? If not, see the rant above. >I thought the CoP was supposed to be an "official" interpretation of >the Laws; is it not? If so, it pretty clearly spells out what is >considered damage, and even more clearly spells out what we do when >the NO's revoke after the infraction; so I'm not clear on why there >should be any debate. Or are we debating or whether the CoP should be >changed? But the CoP doesn't "spell[] out what we do when the NOs revoke after the infraction"; it tells us only that "a revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score". It doesn't say how, or due to what considerations, or by what method, or to what specific effect on the results of the adjudication. These were the original questions on the table. I believe we reached (or assumed to start with) some consensus that when the situation in which the revoke occurred would have occurred similarly absent the original infraction, we adjust (for the NOS) on the presumption that the revoke would have occurred absent the infraction (and for the OS on the presumption that it wouldn't have). But we have a problem when the revoke could not have occurred absent the infraction, such as when the player who revoked on defense would have been declarer, or dummy, or defending a different strain in which the play would have gone completely differently. The CoP says "will affect", not "might affect", so we know that the NOS must get a worse score than we would have awarded had they not revoked. The emerging consensus seemed to be that in that case the best we can do is measure the self-inflicted damage in matchpoints, determine an adjusted matchpoint result based solely on L12C (which says nothing about self-inflicted damage), award the OS the matchpoints given by the latter, and award the NOS that score minus the matchpoints given by the former. Whether we like this method or not, it unarguably meets the requirements of the CoP. So that method could answer the original question, which was about a revoke, since the CoP makes it clear that damage caused by a revoke is assumed to be ESI. It works equally well for self-inflicted damage not the result of a revoke, if we believe what the CoP says. But I can't rid myself of the suspicion that this is wrong; that the intention of the authors of the CoP was that we substract from the L12C adjudication not the matchpoints lost by the NOS's self-inflicted damage, but rather only that portion of the self-inflicted damage that was ESI. The thread expanded beyond (or wandered away from, depending on your point of view) the original topic when some of us (myself included) questioned the implicit assumption in the CoP that damage from a revoke should necessarily be treated as ESI. David S. focused the debate by pointing out that the EBU has chosen to consider damage from a revoke as NESI, so the question is more than merely theoretical. Personally, I prefer the EBU's view to the CoP's. But I am troubled (as Herman seems to be, probably for different reasons) by the fact that the EBU's view seems to violate the apparent consensus that the NOS should sustain the self-inflicted damage from the revoke at least in the case when they could have committed the same revoke in the same situation in the adjudicated presumptive contract. So the "best" answer may lie somewhere in between. Unfortunately, however, there is no room "in between" the CoP and EBU views; a revoke, being a single indivisible occurrence, must generate either ESI or NESI damage. My solution, which ignores the CoP entirely, is to abandon the notion of evaluating "self-inflicted damage" altogether, leaving the distinction between ESI and NESI damage a non-issue, and revert to simply applying the words of L12C as written, under which the NOS's revoke either does or does not affect their adjusted score depending on whether it was not or was "likely" that they would not have revoked absent the original 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 Wed Mar 14 03:36:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DGaWO27243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:36:32 +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.satx.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DGaKt27176 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:36:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:38:14 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:36:14 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26J5NU30105 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:05:24 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26IeCC13648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Ie0t13582 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:01 +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 14aMN9-000LgO-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:39:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:49:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI References: <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman writes >I guess what I meant to assert is that the very best time for North-South to >ask about a possible failure to alert is when it is first demonstrated to be >highly likely. South should ask about 2S immediately after that surprising >3N bid. "Please explain 2 spades." Heck, as I understand it, the ACBL >requires that you check this right away or might forfeit your rights. The >director might be able to minimize the damage. Am I wrong? No, and I am trying to mount an effort to tell more people how important it is to call the Director in MI cases. But while you may lose some rights by not calling [there should be no redress for any call that could still have been changed, for example] you do not lose all rights. [s] >So "need to know" is a bad criterion for asking. It seems to me the advice >to bridge players should be: > >1. As you said, do not ask for partner's benefit if you understand what is >going on. >2. Do *not* ask _only_ when you need to know. That passes UI to partner and >needless benefit to opps. Instead ask systematically or randomly. >3. When there is clear evidence of MI, call the director immediately. > >Is this right world-wide, or is it, perhaps, only an ACBL peculiarity? The point I am trying to make is that asking randomly is fine [well, not recommended in England, Wales, and a few other places, but certainly fine in the ACBL] what is dangerous is asking in one precise situation: [1] Where you have no need to know, AND [2] There is evidence that partner has failed to understand It is the two together that worry 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 03:38:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DGccF27992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:38:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.satx.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DGcUt27954 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:38:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:40:07 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:41:24 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26JRIU23241 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:27:19 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26J7KZ20350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 06:07:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26J79t20307 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 06:07:10 +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 OAA01795 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:13:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103061913.OAA01795@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:13:36 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6 March 2001 at 14:54, "Pam Hadfield" wrote: > >On 06 March 2001 13:11, Eric Landau wrote: >> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI >> >..snip.. >> >> As a matter of principle, can it possibly be wrong to want to know >> what's going on in the opponents' auction even when it won't affect >> your own calls? > >Why on earth would anyone feel the need to ask these questions *during >the auction* when doing so might pass UI to partner or clarify the ops >system for them? Because I'm allowed to? Because the amount of UI partner receives is lessened by not only asking when my hand gives me a reason to? Because on the odd occasion I might have a reason to that I don't yet know, and if I wait until the end of the auction, it's too late? Because there are certain situations where the meaning of my call - including Pass - depends on the meaning of their call; and I have no way to know whether my hand has a reason to take action until I know? Because the Alert Chart (ACBL) says, in bold print, "WHEN IN DOUBT ABOUT THE MEANING OF AN ALERTED CALL, ASK, DO NOT ASSUME!" (emphases in the original)? Because *these* opponents I trust to have their system down (a rarity, I will agree)? Because knowing what's going on when it's going on allows you a better chance of getting the "table feel" inferences right? Having said all of that, I don't always ask (see other post), especially if it looks like the opponents are in a more complicated auction than they are capable of getting right. >Surely those question would be more appropriate at the >end of the auctions before the opening lead - after all, isn't that why >we all say "any questions partner?" when we lead face down? > Well, often they are more appropriate then. Sometimes they're not. Conversely, why let them have a free ride in their auction when you can interfere - if you understand? And the reason we all ask "questions, partner?" is because the most common single question is "yeah. Why (TF) are you leading?" (or as in yesterday, "aren't you declaring?") Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 03:42:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DGg8v29206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:42:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.austin.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DGfxt29153 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:42:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:41:39 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:21:30 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26JAYU03830 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:10:35 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26IeCu13644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Ie0t13583 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:01 +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 14aMNA-000LgP-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:39:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:00:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ghestem again! References: <001301c0a5d9$69d7a3c0$b72cfc3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001301c0a5d9$69d7a3c0$b72cfc3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes >I would be interested to know David, is the EBU L&EC well represented by >working TDs. It has been alleged that we have too many. Certainly Roy Higson said that working TDs should not be on it at all. But there are two TDs amongst seven elected members [David Martin and myself, both reading BLML]. One of the other members was a National TD many years ago [Steve Barnfield, former reader of BLML]. That leaves four others, Martin Pool, David Burn [both of them BLML readers] and Paul Spencer, Richard Fleet. The Chief TD of the EBU, Max Bavin, is an ex officio member. The other ex officio members are, I believe, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the EBU [the current incumbents do not attend]. I understand that board members and Vice-Presidents may attend: in practice this means Grattan Endicott [BLML reader] and Gerard Faulkner [who does not have email!!!!], both former L&EC Chairmen. I think three working TDs is enough, but even if it wasn't, *all* the other people mentioned are used as AC Chairmen. Of course the WBU L&EC contains 100% Working TDs! >I can understand players of varying standards being loathe to be so >dogmatic about regulating the disruption of just one convention in this >manner. However, I find it hard to believe that working TDs, as you and >I,and the rest of this group, are not so fed up with the problems it >creates as not to want to make any inability to handle it - illegal. I >would apply this to any 2 suited overcall, in any circumstance. >In the WBU National Open Pairs last week end, I had 4 "Ghestem gone >wrong" rulings, not all the same hand. They are so time consuming, so >difficult to get absolutely right, that we have got to the stage where >even the culprits are sufficiently embarrassed as to be very happy with >a short sharp 30%/60% next board please. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 03:46:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DGjxc29497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:45:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.austin.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DGjqt29493 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:45:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:43:07 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:21:00 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26JA5U03245 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:10:05 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26IeaM13770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f26IeMt13712 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:22 +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 14aMNb-000B2g-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:40:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:37:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 References: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <200102222010.MAA08741@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes > I make no comment on Herman's comments, but as a matter of information >Herman made his comments based on what you have read, but without seeing >my comments or the L&EC's comments. He had no other source of >information. > > By the way, I should like to thank him for doing this. I asked for >volunteers in a number of places, I only got two, and the other one >failed to produce anything because of personal problems. I am very >pleased that Herman saved everyone from only seeing my comments! We have received many comments. It would not be suitable at this late stage to change the Commentary, of course, but a revised version will go up within 24 hours. The changes are: [1] Asking for feedback about the hands to go to the Editor not the L&EC Secretary [2] Correcting the suit symbols in Herman's comments [**] [3] Adding editorial notes to conventions not well known outside England [4] Adding a publishing history and copyright notice [5] Correcting the explanation of the relay in Case 6 [**] Herman used GillSansBridge which I do not have so his suit symbols appeared to me as [ ] { } and several got mis-translated. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 03:53:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DGrBT29644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:53:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.austin.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DGr4t29638 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:53:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:48:02 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:55:09 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26HiEU04759 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:44:14 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26GxPZ24958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:59:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Gwpt24877 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 03:58:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA19258; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:49:43 +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 RAA29363; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:53:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010306175551.007cf100@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 Mar 2001 17:55:51 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010306104628.00b5d570@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20010306155121.0082ed10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010306080041.00b5cdb0@127.0.0.1> <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:07 6/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >This may be a N.A.-Europe difference. I suspect from reading BLML that >Europeans are inclined more towards "ask only when you need to know", >which avoids giving potential false inferences to the opponents, while >Americans are inclined more towards "ask always" or "ask randomly", >which avoids giving UI in the form of such inferences to partner. Here >it would be considered rather peculiar to pre-alert, kind of like >warning the opponents not to take inferences from your attempts to keep >your tempo constant. AG : will you believe me, this I've already made. And I also believe in telling he opponents (only when it's true, of course) : 'my partner is a near-beginner. Don't take his/her tempi into account' A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 04:00:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DGxnj29812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:59:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.austin.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DGxht29808 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:59:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:54:42 -0600 Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:24:59 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f26JE4U10446 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:14:04 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26IeCC13648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26Ie0t13582 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:40:01 +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 14aMN9-000LgO-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:39:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 11:49:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI References: <080101c0a50a$920c27a0$c0a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <00b601c0a5fa$d61548a0$06a2aec7@ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman writes >I guess what I meant to assert is that the very best time for North-South to >ask about a possible failure to alert is when it is first demonstrated to be >highly likely. South should ask about 2S immediately after that surprising >3N bid. "Please explain 2 spades." Heck, as I understand it, the ACBL >requires that you check this right away or might forfeit your rights. The >director might be able to minimize the damage. Am I wrong? No, and I am trying to mount an effort to tell more people how important it is to call the Director in MI cases. But while you may lose some rights by not calling [there should be no redress for any call that could still have been changed, for example] you do not lose all rights. [s] >So "need to know" is a bad criterion for asking. It seems to me the advice >to bridge players should be: > >1. As you said, do not ask for partner's benefit if you understand what is >going on. >2. Do *not* ask _only_ when you need to know. That passes UI to partner and >needless benefit to opps. Instead ask systematically or randomly. >3. When there is clear evidence of MI, call the director immediately. > >Is this right world-wide, or is it, perhaps, only an ACBL peculiarity? The point I am trying to make is that asking randomly is fine [well, not recommended in England, Wales, and a few other places, but certainly fine in the ACBL] what is dangerous is asking in one precise situation: [1] Where you have no need to know, AND [2] There is evidence that partner has failed to understand It is the two together that worry 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 04:09:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DH9aB00067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:09:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DH9Ut00061 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:09:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:05:53 -0800 Message-ID: <001f01c0abe0$535cf980$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <200103122334.PAA05879@mailhub.irvine.com> <00d901c0ab8b$db3a2a80$8f981e18@san.rr.com> <000c01c0abab$88f838a0$d0277bd5@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:07:03 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > Marvin French wrote: > > > > The current offical interpretation of L12C2 in regard to > > subsequent/consequent damage stands as stated by > > the WBFLC in Lille, 1998. It can be viewed on David > > Stevenson's website (www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf > _lcmn.htm). Redress for the NOS is either granted in full > > or annulled completely, with no compromise suggested. > > > +=+ The NOS is entitled to redress for consequent > damage but not for subsequent damage. I do not > understand this reference to 'annulled completely', > and I think Marv maybe sees words that are not there. The words of the WBFLC minutes from Lille: ",,,the right to redress is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but [is annulled--mlf] only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')" This looks binary to me, annulled or not annulled. They could have said "but may be all or partially annulled..." if that's what was meant. Also: "Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction." If an opposing infraction puts me in a position to get a wonderful score if I just follow suit, I can hardly claim that the infraction damaged me when I don't do so. > No WBF source has talked of complete annulment, > only refusal of redress for damage resulting from > irrational, wild or gambling subsequent action by the > NOS. They retain their basic entitlement to indemnity > to the extent of the consequent damage. The Code > of Practice is the approved WBF statement as to > how the interpretation is implemented by appeals > committees (and Directors). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Not in ACBL-land, even theoretically. And, the CoP is not in agreement with the WBFLC's Lille interpretation of L12C2, which does not use the CoP's words "...it [the NOS-mlf] does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted." Those words constitute a new interpretation that was not blessed by the WBFLC to my knowledge. I guess I am old-fashioned in believing that when the WBF By-laws state that the WBFLC has the responsibility for interpreting the Laws, there is no sophistic reasoning by the CoP originators (or the ACBL) that can get give that responsibility to other bodies. We must have rulings and decisions that are repeatable and as easy as possible for anyone to apply, down to the local club level. Give redress or don't give redress, that's simple. Abstruse calculations arriving at partial redress are too complicated and too subjective. 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 Mar 14 04:17:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DHHSA00243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:17:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f84.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DHHMt00237 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:17:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:17:15 -0800 Received: from 172.167.193.74 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:17:15 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.167.193.74] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:17:15 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Mar 2001 17:17:15.0541 (UTC) FILETIME=[7337EC50:01C0ABE1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Wayne Burrows > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Ed Reppert > > +=+ If a player uses the losing trick count for > > the valuation of his hand, that is systemic. It > > is methodical and not an exercise of judgement. > > An exercise of judgement occurs when he values > > the hand in a way that does not match the > > valuation prescribed by the system. > > Some subscribers to blml would like to think > > they are using judgement when they base calls > > on LTC, but LTC is formulaic and in applying the > > formula no judgement is required but only an > > ability to count, add and subtract. > >The judgement could be to use LTC as opposed to some other form of >evaluation. > >Law 40 tells me that the SO cannot prohibit me from applying that >judgement. Unfortunately, judgement can also be to use mini-NT as opposed to a strong NT. Exercising judgement in giving birth to your system is not the same as exercising judgement in executing it. Around where I play, openings based on LTC is treated as a different system by the players playing it. A semi-standard prealert of it is, "We open based on losing trick count. We will open as light as 10 and pass with as many as 15 high card points." -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 Mar 14 04:23:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DHN8w00369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:23:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DHN1t00365 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:23:02 +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 14csVY-00076n-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:22:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:20:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >>> > >>> > 9.1.4 No convention is permitted whose sole benefit, >>> > or one of whose main benefits, is to deceive >>> > the opponents intentionally as to: >>> > >>> > - the length or strength of a suit, and/or >>> > - the strength of the hand held >>> > >>> > by the player making the call. >>> > snip > > But whether the reg applies to random minors [or minors with a random >type rule to decide which to open] is a matter of interpretation. > In view of the prec 1D on Kxx Kxx xx AKxxx or Kxx Kxx AKxxx xx, I have now given permission for this to be used in the YC subject to the following: 1) pre-alerted (but that's normal in the UK anyway) 2) the alert statement is something like: "a suit if unbalanced, but if partner is planning on rebidding NT he opens either minor on a basis which I do not know, with an expectancy that he opens [the longer 70% of the time] [either with equal frequency regardless of length] [appropriate statement]." 3) I do not know the algorithms (each player has chosen one and told his partner the expected outcome and they are different), but am assured they are deterministic and can be explained if I require it. I further believe that it is allowable at Level 2. (though I don't like it) 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 Wed Mar 14 04:25:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DHOvD00420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 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 mail.satx.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DHOot00414 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:24:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:12:42 -0600 Received: from sm4.texas.rr.com ([24.93.35.211]) by mail.satx.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:43:37 -0600 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by sm4.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f26If0A09652 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:41:00 -0600 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f26I0RU06112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:00:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f26I0Kt06108 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 05:00:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhv3.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.227]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15614 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:00:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002701c0a667$45904920$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <01c09c49$3ced3c60$0100007f@localhost> <002f01c09c58$53b99420$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:00:03 -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 First off, welcome back David!. I hope that you are recovering from your hospital stay, and are feeling better each day. You were greatly missed in your absence. I'm delighted to see you back and posting again, as I learn a great deal from your comments and value them highly. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows > Hirsch Davis writes > > >> Bidding goes > >> > >> W N E S > >> ============= > >> <> <> <> 1N > >> 2C 2N P 3C > >> P P X P > >> 3S P 4C P > >> 4S 5C X end > > >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? > > Doubles in competitive situations in England tend not to be for > penalties. > If I ever get to play in England, I'm going to bid a LOT, particularly if opponents are going to give me the three level unmolested. I'll skip the bridge analysis, as much of it depends on the actual agreements the players had. The real question I was trying to get at was whether or not pass by W, with far more defense than his original bid promised, was an LA after the double by E. If so, would the E hesitation demonstrably suggest that pulling the double would be more successful than leaving it in? If their agreements are such that pass is not an LA, then my argument is of course immaterial. Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 04:40:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DHeJf00714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:40:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DHeCt00708 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:40:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:36:36 -0800 Message-ID: <003701c0abe4$9db127a0$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:37:31 -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: "Tim West-meads" > > Marv wrote: > > > The OS was given a gift of +50 points, but threw it away. Is that what I wrote? Of course I meant NOS, sorry. > > They were not > > damaged at all as a consequence of the infraction, which actually did > > them a favor. For them, no adjustment. +300 for the OS, -450 for the > > NOS. > > The thing that confuses me about this situation is how there was an > infraction. IOW how can UI suggest that 5S is better than doubling (or > making a forcing pass of) 5D when it quite obviously isn't - and won't be > even if you place the opposing cards more favourably for NOS in 4S. > I was looking at a theoretical situation, perhaps not the actual one, and should have made that clear. N/S push to 5S over a 5D save. If there was UI that demonstrably suggested the 5S bid, and passing 5DX is logical, then bidding 5S is an infraction, whether successful or not (L16A). E/W have three tricks off the top, but unaccountably, irrationally, fail to take them, so table result of -450 stands. Their damage was self-inflicted, not a consequence of the 5S bid, so no redress. Reconsidering, I believe the right adjustment for N/S is -50, "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable." The profit they received in the score by bidding 5S must be taken away, even if it came from subsequent rather than consequent damage. I guess my brain is still a little scrambled from putting my bicycle helmet into a car's windshield two weeks ago. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA Off to Kansas City NABC 3/15 to 3/24 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 05:28:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DISEB04989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 05:28:14 +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 f2DIS7t04983 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 05:28:07 +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 f2DIS2T92977 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:28:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313114555.00b8cc80@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 Mar 2001 13:27:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:45 PM 3/12/01, Todd wrote: >There is a catch. Position after the first revoke is: > >> 8 >> J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the >> 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. >> -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >>Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and >>-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >>-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >>8 Q52 twice in hearts. >> -- >> 93 How do you rule? >> -- >> 43 > >Had declarer not revoked the second time, declarer scores 4 tricks and >returns two to the opponents. Declarer would only get 2 tricks >without the benefit of the 2nd revoke. Apply 64C to this situation? No -- although Todd may be right that the "catch" in David S.'s setting of the problem was the correctness of ignoring this particular red herring. A side is "damaged" by an opponent's infraction(s) if their result at the table is less than their "equity position", which is the most favorable result that was likely had there been no infraction. Therefore "damage" can only be "established" when a table result has been achieved and such a comparison can be made. E-W's (the NOS's) equity position -- their most favorable likely result had their been no infraction -- was taking one trick. Their table result was for two tricks, so they did better than their equity position. L64C says that they get either the table result or the score for their equity position, whichever is better; it is satisfied by the two-trick penalty for the multiple revokes. The equity position is based on the presumption that there is no infraction, so does not change when an infraction is committed; there is no "new" artificial equity position established to which the table outcome achieved after another, subsequent infraction is compared assess damage. But wait! Aha! Eureka! Perhaps Todd's analysis has uncovered the catch for us after all. What about L72B1? "Whenever... an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side... [the TD] shall... award[] an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity." S certainly "could have known" that, having revoked on the HA to lose two tricks relative to the NOS's equity position, he could then "gain back" one trick by subsequently revoking on the HJ. So should we rule only two tricks to N-S? There's a problem with the way L72B1 is written. It strongly suggests that "damage" taken by the NOS is equal and opposite to "advantage" gained by the OS. But this isn't true if we interpret the words in ordinary English; once one's side has been damaged, one can "gain an advantage" by reducing that damage without "crossing the line" to where one damages someone else. In applying other laws, we determine damage as described above, using the "formula" in L12C2. Until Todd replied, everyone else applied the normal meaning of "damage" to the potential effect of L64C -- a majority explicitly stated that L64C didn't apply, so we know it wasn't simply overlooked. Is L72B1 using "damage" in a different sense from the rest of TFLB? Is this what David wanted to bring to our attention? Can we determine that the NOS wasn't "damaged" by the outcome at the table and still apply L72B1? Should we rule two tricks to N-S and two tricks to E-W? 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 Mar 14 06:06:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DJ5jc05831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:05:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DJ5ct05824 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:05:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14cu6t-000G5k-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:05:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:54:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> <001e01c0abbe$242c68c0$f2a201d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001e01c0abbe$242c68c0$f2a201d5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: >> OK, but it convinces many of us. You seem to like penalising non- >> offenders: I don't. >It's not a question of penalising non-offenders. It's a question of not >allowing people to play cost-free ridiculous bridge simply because their >opponents have committed an infraction. If a player revokes, then he is >penalised for the revoke, and should not expect to avoid being penalised >for it simply because he would not have had the opportunity to do it if >the infraction had not occurred. While I understand that, it is merely one view of the situation, not the only one by any means. If I had my way, I would allow the double shot completely, as in American Football, and Rugby football, and to a lesser extent in many other sports. of course, I realise in that view I am in a small minority. What we actually have is a compromise position, with a boundary line decided by interpretation. That interpretation is not consistent around the world, and has not been consistent over time. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 06:06:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DJ68P05855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:06:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DJ5tt05838 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:05:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14cu7B-000G5f-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:05:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:00:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >There is a catch. Position after the first revoke is: > >> 8 >> J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the >> 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. >> -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >>Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and >>-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >>-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >>8 Q52 twice in hearts. >> -- >> 93 How do you rule? >> -- >> 43 > >Had declarer not revoked the second time, declarer scores 4 tricks and >returns two to the opponents. Declarer would only get 2 tricks without the >benefit of the 2nd revoke. Apply 64C to this situation? Yes, this is the point of the question. If you apply L64C as to the equity after the first revoke then you would seem to have damage so you should adjust. The player who rang me up to ask this has had it happen to him twice in three months! While the word equity does not appear in L64C, the word damage does, so the question is how do you interpret damage? In the other situation a player with a singleton club revoked by ruffing in 4H. She was now going down in 4H - until she discarded her club loser on a second revoke! -- 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 Mar 14 06:06:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DJ6Bp05858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:06:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DJ5xt05842 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:06:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14cu7B-000G5d-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:05:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:56:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31A2 (BOOT in denomination of legal opener) References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313073805.00b8e1f0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313073805.00b8e1f0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >>South chooses a) and bid 2D. The auction goes: >> >> E S W N >> 1D 2D P P (mandatory) >> X P P ? >No. L16C2: "For the offending side, information arising from its own >withdrawn action... is unauthorized." Here that information is that S >had diamonds. Surely that information comes from the bid that was finally made, ie 2D facing a pd who has to pass? Director's rulings are AI, bids made are AI, so that 2D presumably shows diamonds is AI. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 06:06:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DJ6TI05881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:06:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DJ6Ft05862 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:06:16 +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 OAA17300 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:06:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA13912 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:06:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:06:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103131906.OAA13912@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > What about L72B1? ... S certainly "could have > known" that, having revoked on the HA to lose two tricks relative to > the NOS's equity position, he could then "gain back" one trick by > subsequently revoking on the HJ. I agree with Eric on this portion of the legal analysis; L72B1 should certainly be considered at the moment of the second revoke. However, I don't understand his play analysis. All declarer has to do is avoid winning a trick in hand with a heart. The second revoke doesn't help him do that. As a reminder, the position after the first revoke is: > >> 8 > >> J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > >> 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > >> -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. > >>Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and > >>-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he > >>-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked > >>8 Q52 twice in hearts. > >> -- > >> 93 How do you rule? > >> -- > >> 43 Alternatively, we can consider the defender's equity at this point. (In contrast to Eric, I believe L64C applies here. It specifically includes revokes not subject to penalty.) The defenders' equity is the spade trick they are due plus a _one_ trick revoke penalty already "earned;" thus two tricks in all. That's what the final ruling gives them, hence no change. I believe the ruling would be different if declarer's low heart were higher than the 5 or his high one higher than the J. In that layout, there would be no legal way of avoiding a _two_ trick revoke penalty, and you can apply either L64C or L72B1 to give the defenders three tricks, their equity in the (modified version of the) layout above. In any case, I believe David posed the original problem because we need to judge "equity" in the above layouts. How do we do it? As unfavorably as possible to the revoker? Or on the "L70 definition of normal?" Or on the L12C2 standard (in fact separate standards for the OS and NOS)? I believe the latter is correct, and here the necessary unblocking play seems simple enough. Another point that might be argued is whether the play is judged assuming the revoker has had the applicable laws explained. I think it has to so, else players unfamiliar with the laws have a huge disadvantage. In other words, here a declarer unfamiliar with the laws might play the hearts in random order, but once he is told it's better to avoid winning a heart trick in hand, he will get it right. (Specifically, it is not "at all probable" that he will get it wrong.) I think we judge on that basis. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 07:42:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DKIbE06622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:18:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DKIGt06618 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:18:31 +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 MAA26729; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:17:39 -0800 Message-Id: <200103132017.MAA26729@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:00:49 GMT." Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:17:38 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Todd Zimnoch writes > >There is a catch. Position after the first revoke is: > > > >> 8 > >> J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > >> 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > >> -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. > >>Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and > >>-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he > >>-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked > >>8 Q52 twice in hearts. > >> -- > >> 93 How do you rule? > >> -- > >> 43 > > > >Had declarer not revoked the second time, declarer scores 4 tricks and > >returns two to the opponents. Declarer would only get 2 tricks without the > >benefit of the 2nd revoke. Apply 64C to this situation? > > Yes, this is the point of the question. If you apply L64C as to the > equity after the first revoke then you would seem to have damage so you > should adjust. > > The player who rang me up to ask this has had it happen to him twice > in three months! While the word equity does not appear in L64C, the > word damage does, so the question is how do you interpret damage? Using the CoP definition, "damage exists when an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." So assuming there were two infractions here, we'd determine the NO's expected result just before the second revoke occurred, but after the first one. This brings to mind two questions: (1) Is a second revoke in the same suit a separate infraction, or a continuation of the first one? (2) When there are two infractions, does the "expectation" at the instant just before the second infraction include penalties that the NO's have coming from the first infraction? I think the answer to (2) is clearly yes, since I can't think of a basis in Law why it shouldn't be. I suppose (1) could go either way, but there's no particularly good reason based in the Laws to treat two revokes as one big infraction. The problem I have with this conclusion is that 64B2 *seems* (at least to me) to indicate that the Laws' authors intended that revoking twice (or more) in the same suit should carry the same penalty as revoking once; and the above reasoning, while it appears to be correct, seems to undercut the apparent intent. I think this is just another case where the WBFLC will have to decide what they really want and modify the Laws accordingly. -- 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 Mar 14 07:42:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DKHSv06616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:17:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DKHCt06612 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:17:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp245-212.worldonline.nl [195.241.245.212]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id F00F137BF5; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:16:35 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002a01c0abfa$daf46f80$d4f5f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:16:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote : >Todd Zimnoch writes >>There is a catch. Position after the first revoke is: >> >>> 8 >>> J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the >>> 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. >>> -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >>>Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and >>>-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >>>-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >>>8 Q52 twice in hearts. >>> -- >>> 93 How do you rule? >>> -- >>> 43 >> >>Had declarer not revoked the second time, declarer scores 4 tricks and >>returns two to the opponents. Declarer would only get 2 tricks without the >>benefit of the 2nd revoke. Apply 64C to this situation? > > Yes, this is the point of the question. If you apply L64C as to the >equity after the first revoke then you would seem to have damage so you >should adjust. > > The player who rang me up to ask this has had it happen to him twice >in three months! While the word equity does not appear in L64C, the >word damage does, so the question is how do you interpret damage? > > In the other situation a player with a singleton club revoked by >ruffing in 4H. She was now going down in 4H - until she discarded her >club loser on a second revoke! Great, but I've been taught that that is what L72B2 is for. I would assume both revokes to be unintentional, unless there's proof that the second one was made on purpose. Thus, I would normally apply L64A2 and L64B2 and transfer two tricks, but if I have sufficient proof that the second revoke was intentional, I would go for L64C and hand out a PP. I would be reluctant to go for L64C plus a PP, though, because it amoounts to saying that a player has behaved very improperly. 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 Mar 14 07:45:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DKQwb06635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:26:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DKQlt06631 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:26:53 +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 f2DKQSF23737 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:26:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313141548.00b8f350@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 Mar 2001 15:26:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <000901c0ab62$16edc5c0$2f4b063e@dodona> References: <01030911363101.03606@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20010309153005.00b74420@127.0.0.1> <002901c0a8e5$cd36c630$5613f7a5@james> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:04 PM 3/12/01, Grattan wrote: >+=+ If a player uses the losing trick count for >the valuation of his hand, that is systemic. It >is methodical and not an exercise of judgement. >An exercise of judgement occurs when he values >the hand in a way that does not match the >valuation prescribed by the system. > Some subscribers to blml would like to think >they are using judgement when they base calls >on LTC, but LTC is formulaic and in applying the >formula no judgement is required but only an >ability to count, add and subtract. LTC is a >different method from Milton Work count, within >the meaning of 'method' in Law 40E. That's much too simplistic. It might work for the Walrus. If you only know one method of quantitative evalution, if you use it for every call, if it never yields an ambiguous result, and if you always accept the result without ever deviating, then it's reasonable to claim that your calls are based on your "system" rather than your "judgment". But that doesn't reflect real life. Most bridge players are not walruses. For them, there is no way to distinguish whether a particular call was based on system or judgment. If my usual practice is to count in both Work and LTC, accepting the indicated action when they agree and deciding which one I like better when they disagree, is that system or judgment? Or is it system if I decide which one I like better by applying some third quantitative method and letting the majority rule but judgment if I decide which one I like better by intuition alone? If I normally count only in Work, but consider LTC when the result using Work is marginal or ambiguous, is that system or judgment? Suppose I count my Work points and they tell me to open, but I have a vague intutitive feeling that in this particular situation it would be better to pass. If I just "go with my gut" and pass, that's clearly judgment, not system. But if I do a quick LTC count just to check my sanity and discover that it suggests a pass, telling me that my gut feeling that maybe I shouldn't open wasn't completely off the walls, so I go ahead and pass, is my pass now based on system, not judgment? And what of the "slippery slope" problem I raised earlier? In Grattan's simple world, we can say that if I count only Work points and my partner counts only Work points we play the same system whereas if I count only losing tricks and my partner counts only Work points we play different systems. But what if I count Work and LTC while partner counts Work alone? Same system or different system? What if I count Work and he counts Goren (Work with some adjustments)? What if I count Work and LTC and he counts Work and modified LTC? What if I count Work and Goren and LTC and he counts Work and Goren and LTC and modified LTC? What if I count Work and Goren and QTs and LTC and modified LTC and then take away a jack-value for having no aces, while he counts all those things but doesn't adjust for no aces? Where do we find the line across which Grattan would agree that we are playing the same system? Do we have to reach the point where our evaluation methodologies are absolutely identical (which in reality would mean that no two members of a partnership are ever really playing the same system)? Or we only need to get to the point where we each say "dammit, I don't know why I decided (not) to open; I just decided and I can't tell you how"? Does a more introspective or articulate player's ability to verbalize, possibly in quantitative terms, how he came to that decision create a possible infraction (playing a different system than his partner is) that can't exist for a less introspective or articulate player? One notes that by Grattan's definition, a partnership may be playing different systems even if they would make the same bid on any given hand in any given situation 100% of the time. Different people have different brains. Intuition expresses itself to consciousness in qualitative terms for some folks and in quantitative terms for others. Is "I didn't open because I didn't like having no aces even though I had enough points to open" ("judgment" per Grattan) really any different from "I didn't open because I subtracted a point for having no aces and then didn't have enough points to open" ("system" per Grattan)? I submit that in whatever sense they might be different, the difference is not one on which we can or should base elements of our jurisprudence. This isn't about "mind-reading" someone's intent; it's about mind-reading the subtleties of someone's intuition beyond what even the subject himself can know, trying to distinguish an infraction (partners using different systems) from a non-infraction based on the subconscious intutitive processes by which human minds translate objectives into intended actions. It can only belong in the 1984 version of the rules. 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 Mar 14 07:56:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DKbiF06644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:37:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DKbPt06640 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:37:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-28.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.28]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 762B237D32; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:37:18 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001b01c0abfc$9618f460$d9b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:31:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> Marvin French wrote: >The words of the WBFLC minutes from Lille: > >",,,the right to redress is not annulled by a normal error or >misjudgement in the subsequent action but [is annulled--mlf] only by an >action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would >include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')" > >This looks binary to me, annulled or not annulled. They could have said >"but may be all or partially annulled..." if that's what was meant. We have to accept that demanding people will keep telling us how we have to interpret our own decisions. Let me start to admit that the wording could have been more clear, but that does not mean that we are going to change what we wanted to say because somebody wants his approach being followed and finds a way to get there. Reading our words there could be another objection. What if this action by the non offenders is evidently wild, but does not influence the score. This is quite possible in a pairs event, where the offenders get a top by their infraction independent of any action ( careless, wild ), taken by their opponents. Now dear Marv we will adjust the score, though our minutes seem to say that we shouldn't. The reason is that the 'subsequent action' didn't cause subsequent damage, but the whole bucket was loaded with consequent damage already. Also: > >"Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the >infraction." > >If an opposing infraction puts me in a position to get a wonderful score >if I just follow suit, I can hardly claim that the infraction damaged me >when I don't do so. This seems to say that you agree with our approach. 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 Mar 14 08:14:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DKv8O06681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:57:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DKuqt06677 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:57:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from satx.rr.com (cs160153-181.satx.rr.com [24.160.153.181]) by sm8.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2DKkBK15581 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:46:11 -0600 Message-ID: <3AAE89BC.D25FA493@satx.rr.com> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:57:32 -0600 From: Albert W Lochli Reply-To: biigal@satx.rr.com Organization: Internet Coordinator ACBL D-16 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: [BLML] For Marcus BLML Majordomo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Maybe this will help: Information on the looping mail problem -- his observations agree with mine -- I am only being bombarded with mail from these three servers and it is mainly SATLUG and BridgeLawsMailList BLML mail that is looping and looping and looping does this help any? >From: Lindsay Haisley >Reply-To: Lindsay Haisley >To: linux@ctlug.org, ctlug@ctlug.org >Subject: Bad RR Server List >Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:50:09 -0600 > >Going through my logs for the past 24 hours, I note that I've bounced mail >from the following RR servers. > >[24.93.35.220] >[24.93.35.222] >[24.93.35.223] >[24.93.35.225] >[24.93.35.226] >[24.93.35.54] > >Checking the logs, the last 3 appear to be the ones sending crap over and >over again. Hits from the first 3 are few, probably people trying to send >legit email. Telnetting to port 25 on each of these shows that the first 3 >are running sendmail while the last 3 are running an unknown Microsloth >MTA. >My, my! This is apparently another sterling example of how Microsloth >supports industry innovation, which is severely threatened by the whole >open >source movement. One certainly has to learn new ways of looking at things >in this brave new world of information technology ;) George Orwell's ghost >is alive and well! > >I've removed the block on the whole class C and am now blocking only the >last 3 IP addresses above. > >David, if you see any beserker looping mail from any other RR servers, send >me the IP address right away and I'll put it in the nuke-em list. You >might >do a grep on the stuff you've received so far and see what you come up >with. > >- >Lindsay Haisley | "Everything works | PGP public key >FMP Computer Services | if you let it" | available at >512-259-1190 | (The Roadie) | >http://www.fmp.com | | > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 Wed Mar 14 08:27:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DLRPP06801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:27:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DLRJt06794 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:27:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA25140 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:27:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA14118 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:27:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 16:27:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103132127.QAA14118@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Jac Fuchs" > Great, but I've been taught that that is what L72B2 is for. > I would assume both revokes to be unintentional, unless there's proof > that the second one was made on purpose. Yes, of course. If there's violation of L72B*2*, you want to add some DP's and PP's and start C&E action. > Thus, I would normally apply > L64A2 and L64B2 and transfer two tricks, but if I have sufficient > proof that the second revoke was intentional, I would go for L64C Why would you care about intent when considering 64C? Or 72B1? > From: Adam Beneschan > 64B2 *seems* (at least to me) to indicate that the > Laws' authors intended that revoking twice (or more) in the same suit > should carry the same penalty as revoking once; I don't see the problem. The second revoke is a separate infraction. It carries no _penalty_, but we consider equity at the moment before the second revoke. If that revoke improves the OS score, the improvement is taken away by L64C. Like any revoke, the second one won't _necessarily_ lead to a worse result for the OS, but it should never lead to a better one. It cannot possibly be right to give a better score for two revokes than for only one. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 09:11:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DMBM208686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:11:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DMBFt08676 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:11:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010313221256.YLDD3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]>; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:12:56 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "ton kooijman" CC: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" , Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 22:11:00 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010313221256.YLDD3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "ton kooijman" > Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:31:18 +0100 > To: "Marvin L. French" , > "Bridge Laws" > CC: > Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again > > > >> Marvin French wrote: > > >The words of the WBFLC minutes from Lille: > > > >",,,the right to redress is not annulled by a normal error or > >misjudgement in the subsequent action but [is annulled--mlf] only by an > >action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would > >include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')" > > > >This looks binary to me, annulled or not annulled. They could have said > >"but may be all or partially annulled..." if that's what was meant. > > > > We have to accept that demanding people will keep telling us how we have to > interpret our own decisions. > I think that this is the wrong perception on the interpretation of regulations. The problem that I perceive that the masses face (and I know that I certainly face) is that they (I) have to interpret the Laws and regulations and decisions based on what is written not on what was intended. You saying that something different was intended does not have the same weight as the decision that was promulgated. I think it is paramount that these decisions etc say what was intended otherwise there will be those who do not know what is intended and they will rule according to what is written (as best as they can interpret). 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 Wed Mar 14 09:31:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DMUoB09725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:30:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from aurora.uaf.edu (root@aurora.uaf.edu [137.229.18.100]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DMUgt09713 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:30:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (uaf-du-06-11.alaska.edu [137.229.8.131]) by aurora.uaf.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08376 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:30:36 -0900 (AKST) Message-ID: <3AAEA0A9.611F5026@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:35:22 -0900 From: Michael Schmahl X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] MI, Alaska style Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From a Friday evening club game: Board 8 AJT962 W N E S W deals 82 P 2S 3C(1) 3H None vul. Q963 X(2) P P P 5 KQ3 854 (1) Intended as Fishbein (takeout 93 AT6 double) JT42 A7 (2) Intended as Rosenkrantz (showing KT76 AQJ42 a high club honor) 7 KQJ754 K85 983 Trick 1: Club to East's Ace Trick 2: Heart to South's King Trick 3: Club, ruffed in dummy Trick 4: Diamond to East's Ace Trick 5: Club Queen Trick 6: Club Jack, ruffed with the Jack South eventually went down one. West mentioned as the hand concluded that she intended her double as Rosenkrantz. South "called the director"[1]. South asserts that had he known that West still had the CK, he would not have ruffed high. The director, through questions and prior experience with this pair, knows that "forgetful Fishbein" is the actual agreement. Thus South is not entitled to the information that West had intended to show the CK. Nonetheless, armed with the knowledge that East's 3C call was artificial, he might not have played for clubs to be 6-3. How do you rule? Note that ruffing high is bad play; it can never gain even if clubs are 6-3. Does this affect your decision? [1] The only qualified directors in the club are South, North, and East at this table. East is not officially qualified, but directs occasionally. South is the official director, but in director-call situations involving this pair, the partner of the caller makes the ruling, avoiding as much as possible any appearance of partiality. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 09:46:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DMkWe12027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:46:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DMkPt12017 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:46:25 +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 f2DMkKT10826 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:46:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313162756.00ab5830@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 Mar 2001 17:46:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <00a901c0ab86$4e7483c0$8f981e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312173731.00b8d1f0@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 01:24 AM 3/13/01, Marvin wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > There are two "likely" results for E-W: -450 and -300. L12C2 tells us > > to adjust the score to "the most favorable" of these. That looks to >me > > like -300. WTP? > >The problem is that the WBFLC has ruled that "damage" in this case >applies only to the OS, not to the NOS, who shot themselves in the foot. >Redress per L12C2 is not merely modified in such cases, it is >*annulled*. Not true. The WBFLC has ruled that "if the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted". Suppose instead that E-W's "egregious error" had cost them their second trick against 5S. Now their table result was -480 for a zero. Absent the egregious error, they would have scored -450 for an average. But absent the infraction, they would have scored -300 for a top. They took a full board of damage. Of that, "such part of the damage as is self-inflicted" can be no more than the half a board they lost by their play at the table. Only in the ACBL will we find anyone who thinks that E-W "deserve" to lose a full board over what they would have otherwise received because their one-trick blunder was "egregious". > > Had 4S been the only likely contract absent the infraction, there >would > > be no damage because, absent the infraction, E-W would have >scored -450 > > instead of -450. But when E-W might have played in 5D absent the > > infraction, they might have scored -300 instead of -450, which looks > > like 150 points worth of damage to me. > >The OS was given a gift of +50 points, but threw it away. They were not >damaged at all as a consequence of the infraction, which actually did >them a favor. For them, no adjustment. +300 for the OS, -450 for the >NOS. First of all, they were the NOS, not the OS. As David S. keeps reminding us, that makes interpreting the rules so as to "stick it to them" feel a lot less satisfactory (at least to those of us who don't believe that committing an egregious error makes one an "offender"). Second of all, they may have been "offered" a "gift" of +50, but they weren't "given" it, as they didn't "accept" it. If somebody comes to me with a transparent scam and, due to my own egregious stupidity, I fall for it, and I later sue them for damages and the court does indeed find that they committed a fraud, the court will not keep the restitution because the crooks would have given me a full refund plus 10% had I asked within a three day "grace period" after signing the contract but I was too dumb to do so. Once more: Table result: N-S +450 (top), E-W -450 (zero). Hypothetical result absent infraction and egregious error: N-S +300 (zero), E-W -300 (top). Hypothetical result with infraction but absent egregious error: N-S -50 (zero), E-W +50 (top). Hypothetical result absent infraction but with egregious error: Impossible, meaningless, a logical contradiction. The egregious error could not have occurred absent the infraction. We cannot find a hypothetical result that satisfies the conditions, and cannot base our adjustment on a conclusion we cannot determine. So if we were to follow Marv's interpretation, the finding of "infraction" would turn what would otherwise be N-S's top into a zero, while the finding of "egregious error" would turn what would otherwise be E-W's top into a zero. Equal punishment implies equal culpability. Do we really want to punish E-W's egregious error every bit as harshly as N-S's violation of the laws? Should acting stupidly have the same legal consequences as acting illegally? Have the two sides here really committed equivalent "offenses"? 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 Mar 14 10:02:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DN2TA12870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:02:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DN2Lt12859 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:02:22 +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 f2DN2Ha88739 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:02:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313175055.00b81770@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 Mar 2001 18:02:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <00d901c0ab8b$db3a2a80$8f981e18@san.rr.com> References: <200103122334.PAA05879@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:00 AM 3/13/01, Marvin wrote: >It is not. The CoP was not issued by the WBFLC, which is the sole >authority for writing and interpreting the Laws. The CoP (Code of >Practice for Appeals Committees) is an optional document for NCBOs and >ZAs, which they can either follow or ignore. Here is what Grattan wrote: > >######### >The WBFLC has the responsibility for the >international code of laws; it decided to >make no change in the laws for the present >and probably until 2005. The Code of Practice >Group established with Executive authority had >decided (a) to introduce a new procedure for WBF >appeals, and (b) to promulgate to all member >NCBOs its Code of Practice with the hope >expressed that they will adopt it. How they >do this, gradual introduction from the top down >being likely, is a matter for the NCBOs and the >Zones. (I say 'how'; this includes 'whether'.) >########## > >The current offical interpretation of L12C2 in regard to >subsequent/consequent damage stands as stated by the WBFLC in Lille, >1998. It can be viewed on David Stevenson's website >(www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm). Redress for the NOS is either >granted in full or annulled completely, with no compromise suggested. Ridiculous! Does Marv really believe that the WBF (which is ultimately responsible for putting the WBF imprimatur on the recommendations of both its LC and its CoPG) has "promulgate[d] to all member NCBOs its Code of Practice with the hope that they will adopt it" while simultaneously maintaining that it contains interpretations of laws which contradict their own "current official interpretation"? That would mean that the WBF as a body wants member NCBOs to adopt some carefully formulated new regulations with the understanding that they must then ignore them as a matter of law. I might believe this of the ACBL, which has something of a history of total irrationality, but surely not of the WBF. 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 Mar 14 10:12:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DNBwT13369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:11:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2DNBot13358 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:11:52 +1100 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:22:47 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087C86@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:22:41 -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: Todd Zimnoch [mailto:kneebee@hotmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 6:12 PM > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke > > > >From: Adam Beneschan > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > 8 > > > AJ5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > > > 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > > > -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. > > > Q53 J4 He then plays a heart to the nine, and > > > -- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he > > > -- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked > > > 98 Q52 twice in hearts. > > > 6 > > > 93 How do you rule? > > > -- > > > 43 > > > >E-W get two tricks. This seems straightforward. South > revoked on the > >HA, and later won a trick with a card (H3) he could have legally > >played to the revoke trick; therefore, the penalty is two tricks > >(L64A2). The second revoke generates no further penalty, because of > >L64B2. L64C doesn't apply, since the defense wouldn't have gotten > >more than one trick if the play had proceeded normally. > > 64A2 does not apply. Offending player won the revoke trick. No, Offender's partner won the trick. > > >So what's the catch? Is there a dispute about what a "revoke in the > >same suit" means? I believe it means failure to follow when the same > >suit is led; it doesn't mean that the card played illegally has to be > >the same suit as the previous card played illegally. > > > > -- Adam > > I'm also wary. > > -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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 10:46:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DNjnY15004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:45:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com ([206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DNjet14993 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:45:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07687 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:01:15 -0900 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:44:45 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313175055.00b81770@127.0.0.1> 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, 13 Mar 2001, Eric Landau wrote: > I might believe this of the > ACBL, which has something of a history of total irrationality, but > surely not of the WBF. > Aha! Finally we are making some progress. So you believe distinction between careless and inferior behaviour, and total irrationality, DOES depend on the class of sponsoring organization involved! 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 Mar 14 10:53:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2DNr4b15369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:53:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2DNqvt15359 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:52:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp222-33.worldonline.nl [195.241.222.33]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 1419E36B5B; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:52:52 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003e01c0ac19$09af09c0$d4f5f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:55:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote : > >Yes, of course. If there's violation of L72B*2*, you want to add some >DP's and PP's and start C&E action. > >> Thus, I would normally apply >> L64A2 and L64B2 and transfer two tricks, but if I have sufficient >> proof that the second revoke was intentional, I would go for L64C > >Why would you care about intent when considering 64C? Or 72B1? I dislike 72B1 which allows a TD to punish a player for something he did not intentionally do. I prefer a "lawish" point of view: (leaving aside, of course, the cases in which the Laws prescribe remedies for situations in which intent does not matter) a player should only be punished (or corrected, if you prefer that word) if it can be taken for granted or proven that he was trying to flout the Laws. I prefer not to punish if there's reasonable doubt. Thus, my first reaction was to apply either L64C plus L72B2 (which you snipped) or to leave it at L64A2 and L64B2. I am still convinced L72B1 is not the law to apply here. HOWEVER : you have convinced me ! Having read L64C, it seems to make perfect sense to me that this law has to be applied to the second revoke as well, and that we have to look at the situation at the moment of the second revoke too. >It cannot possibly be right to give a better score for two revokes than >for only one. With L64C in hand it apparently cannot, but there is no general principle in the Laws that forbids a side to profit from a mistake of their own making. 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 Mar 14 14:27:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2E3PUf00720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:25:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f2E3PNt00716 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:25:23 +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 14d1uY-000Oxi-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:25:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:23:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Todd Zimnoch writes >>There is a catch. Position after the first revoke is: >> >>> 8 >>> J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the >>> 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. >>> -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >>>Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and >>>-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >>>-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >>>8 Q52 twice in hearts. >>> -- >>> 93 How do you rule? >>> -- >>> 43 >> >>Had declarer not revoked the second time, declarer scores 4 tricks and >>returns two to the opponents. Declarer would only get 2 tricks without the >>benefit of the 2nd revoke. Apply 64C to this situation? > For ages I've been bashing away that revokes fall into " ... could have known ... " territory and I've been universally howled down. Suddenly we want to use " ... could have known ...". There's a revoke Law. It is explicit about what constitutes a revoke, and it tells us there is no penalty for a second revoke in the same suit. Given that there are plays which can restrict the damage, equity is done by accepting the two trick penalty. If the opponents do not call me at the point when the 2nd Heart is lead, why should I rule otherwise, as declarer, having had the Law explained, will be able to negotiate 4 tricks less a 1 trick penalty. OTOH, if "... could have known..." is in place then I can adjust without reference to Law 64C, and I might well limit declarer to 2 tricks. > Yes, this is the point of the question. If you apply L64C as to the >equity after the first revoke then you would seem to have damage so you >should adjust. > > The player who rang me up to ask this has had it happen to him twice >in three months! While the word equity does not appear in L64C, the >word damage does, so the question is how do you interpret damage? > > In the other situation a player with a singleton club revoked by >ruffing in 4H. She was now going down in 4H - until she discarded her >club loser on a second revoke! > -- 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 Mar 14 20:05:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2E94to26537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:04:55 +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 f2E94nt26533 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:04:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:01:12 -0800 Message-ID: <00a401c0ac65$ca6588a0$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <001b01c0abfc$9618f460$d9b6f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:00:19 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "ton kooijman" > > >> Marvin French wrote: > > >The words of the WBFLC minutes from Lille: > > > >",,,the right to redress is not annulled by a normal error or > >misjudgement in the subsequent action but [is annulled--mlf] only by an > >action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would > >include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')" > > > >This looks binary to me, annulled or not annulled. They could have said > >"but may be all or partially annulled..." if that's what was meant. > > We have to accept that demanding people will keep telling us how we have to > interpret our own decisions. Ton, I'm accepting the interpetation of L12C2 provided by your LC at Lille. It's the CoP interpretation that I don't accept, because it writes a new interpretation of L12C2, one that differs from that of the WBFLC. > Let me start to admit that the wording could have been more clear, but that > does not mean that we are going to change what we wanted to say because > somebody wants his approach being followed and finds a way to get there. > Reading our words there could be another objection. What if this action by > the non offenders is evidently wild, but does not influence the score. This > is quite possible in a pairs event, where the offenders get a top by their > infraction independent of any action ( careless, wild ), taken by their > opponents. Now dear Marv we will adjust the score, though our minutes seem > to say that we shouldn't. The reason is that the 'subsequent action' didn't > cause subsequent damage, but the whole bucket was loaded with consequent > damage already. I didn't intend to disagree with what you say here. Of course the OS score is adjusted even when the NOS has redress annulled. I think that's what the LC minutes say. My disagreement is with the partial redress that the CoP calls for in certain situations, when applying L12C2. I didn't see that in the LC minutes, which seems to say full redress or no redress, nothing halfway, for the NOS. > > Also: > > > >"Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the > >infraction." > > > >If an opposing infraction puts me in a position to get a wonderful score > >if I just follow suit, I can hardly claim that the infraction damaged me > >when I don't do so. > > This seems to say that you agree with our approach. Yes, Ton, with the approach of the ACBL LC: redress annulled for the NOS, OS score adjusted nevertheless. But not with the approach of the CoP, which might give partial redress in such a case: "..it [the NOS] does not receive relief for such part of the damage that is self-inflicted." Some relief, in other words, but not for the part that was self-inflicted. That language that goes beyond mere instructions for applying L12C2 into a new interpretation of L12C2. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA Off to Kansas City NABC -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 14 20:45:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2E9jRW26580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:45:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2E9jMt26576 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:45:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:41:46 -0800 Message-ID: <00aa01c0ac6b$75310980$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312173731.00b8d1f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010313162756.00ab5830@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:35:44 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" wrote: > At 01:24 AM 3/13/01, Marvin wrote: > > >From: "Eric Landau" > > > > > There are two "likely" results for E-W: -450 and -300. L12C2 tells us > > > to adjust the score to "the most favorable" of these. That looks to > >me > > > like -300. WTP? > > > >The problem is that the WBFLC has ruled that "damage" in this case > >applies only to the OS, not to the NOS, who shot themselves in the foot. > >Redress per L12C2 is not merely modified in such cases, it is > >*annulled*. > > Not true. The WBFLC has ruled that "if the damaged side has wholly or > partly caused its own damage by > irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the > adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted". Those are NOT the words of the WBFLC. They come from the CoP, which was not written by the WBFLC and does not carry the force of law that WBFLC interpretations do. > Suppose > instead that E-W's "egregious error" had cost them their second trick > against 5S. Now their table result was -480 for a zero. Absent the > egregious error, they would have scored -450 for an average. But > absent the infraction, they would have scored -300 for a top. They > took a full board of damage. Of that, "such part of the damage as is > self-inflicted" can be no more than the half a board they lost by their > play at the table. Only in the ACBL will we find anyone who thinks > that E-W "deserve" to lose a full board over what they would have > otherwise received because their one-trick blunder was "egregious". Is it too subtle a point to say that there is a difference between repairable and irreparable damage? If it was only an overtrick involved, the damage from the 5S bid was irreparable. Nothing the NOS could do would make up for the damage done. They get full redress, of course, -300, regardless of any stupid irrational act they might commit. That point was made strongly by Edgar Kaplan, and if any ignorant ACBL TD/AC says otherwise that does not make it ACBL policy, which is: "actions subsequent to the infraction may be relevant for the non-offenders." (ACBLLC, Nov 1998). "May be relevant," that is, when they self-destruct. > > > > Had 4S been the only likely contract absent the infraction, there > >would > > > be no damage because, absent the infraction, E-W would have > >scored -450 > > > instead of -450. But when E-W might have played in 5D absent the > > > infraction, they might have scored -300 instead of -450, which looks > > > like 150 points worth of damage to me. > > > >The OS was given a gift of +50 points, but threw it away. They were not > >damaged at all as a consequence of the infraction, which actually did > >them a favor. For them, no adjustment. +300 for the OS, -450 for the > >NOS. > > First of all, they were the NOS, not the OS. Yeah, yeah, sorry. Bad typo. I have reconsidered the +300 for the OS, and would give them -50 in 5S. I forgot momentarily that an OS adjustment need not be based on what would have happened "absent the infraction," which applies only to a an adjustment for the NOS (when they get one, that is). > As David S. keeps > reminding us, that makes interpreting the rules so as to "stick it to > them" feel a lot less satisfactory (at least to those of us who don't > believe that committing an egregious error makes one an > "offender"). Second of all, they may have been "offered" a "gift" of > +50, but they weren't "given" it, as they didn't "accept" it. If > somebody comes to me with a transparent scam and, due to my own > egregious stupidity, I fall for it, and I later sue them for damages > and the court does indeed find that they committed a fraud, the court > will not keep the restitution because the crooks would have given me a > full refund plus 10% had I asked within a three day "grace period" > after signing the contract but I was too dumb to do so. Not a convincing analogy to me, sorry. > > Once more: > > Table result: N-S +450 (top), E-W -450 (zero). > > Hypothetical result absent infraction and egregious error: N-S +300 > (zero), E-W -300 (top). > > Hypothetical result with infraction but absent egregious error: N-S > -50 (zero), E-W +50 (top). > > Hypothetical result absent infraction but with egregious > error: Impossible, meaningless, a logical contradiction. The > egregious error could not have occurred absent the infraction. We > cannot find a hypothetical result that satisfies the conditions, and > cannot base our adjustment on a conclusion we cannot determine. No need to satisfy the conditions of L12C2 for the NOS, since L12C2 is applied only to the OS in this situation (note the "or" in L12C2, often ignored). The table result is not meaningless, it happened, and it's what the NOS should get. > > So if we were to follow Marv's interpretation, the finding of > "infraction" would turn what would otherwise be N-S's top into a zero, > while the finding of "egregious error" would turn what would otherwise > be E-W's top into a zero. Equal punishment implies equal > culpability. Do we really want to punish E-W's egregious error every > bit as harshly as N-S's violation of the laws? Should acting stupidly > have the same legal consequences as acting illegally? Have the two > sides here really committed equivalent "offenses"? The punishment may be equal, but E-W punished themselves, while the Laws punished N-S. Seems okay to me, going by the WBFLC interpretation of L12C2. My last word on this, as I am off to the Kansas City NABC. 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 Mar 14 20:50:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2E9oEd26593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:50:14 +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 f2E9o8t26589 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:50:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:46:33 -0800 Message-ID: <00b701c0ac6c$2058a660$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <200103122334.PAA05879@mailhub.irvine.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010313175055.00b81770@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:49:04 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > Marvin wrote: > > >It is not. The CoP was not issued by the WBFLC, which is the sole > >authority for writing and interpreting the Laws. The CoP (Code of > >Practice for Appeals Committees) is an optional document for NCBOs and > >ZAs, which they can either follow or ignore. Here is what Grattan wrote: > > > >######### > >The WBFLC has the responsibility for the > >international code of laws; it decided to > >make no change in the laws for the present > >and probably until 2005. The Code of Practice > >Group established with Executive authority had > >decided (a) to introduce a new procedure for WBF > >appeals, and (b) to promulgate to all member > >NCBOs its Code of Practice with the hope > >expressed that they will adopt it. How they > >do this, gradual introduction from the top down > >being likely, is a matter for the NCBOs and the > >Zones. (I say 'how'; this includes 'whether'.) > >########## > > > >The current offical interpretation of L12C2 in regard to > >subsequent/consequent damage stands as stated by the WBFLC in Lille, > >1998. It can be viewed on David Stevenson's website > >(www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm). Redress for the NOS is either > >granted in full or annulled completely, with no compromise suggested. > > Ridiculous! Does Marv really believe that the WBF (which is ultimately > responsible for putting the WBF imprimatur on the recommendations of > both its LC and its CoPG) has "promulgate[d] to all member NCBOs its > Code of Practice with the hope that they will adopt it" while > simultaneously maintaining that it contains interpretations of laws > which contradict their own "current official interpretation"? That > would mean that the WBF as a body wants member NCBOs to adopt some > carefully formulated new regulations with the understanding that they > must then ignore them as a matter of law. I might believe this of the > ACBL, which has something of a history of total irrationality, but > surely not of the WBF. > As I understand it, some provisions of the CoP are in the nature of experiments. An example is its granting of the L12C3 right to TDs as well as ACs, which contradicts the current L12C3 in the Laws. No one is saying the CoP changed the law (a desire that the WBFLC declined to fulfill), but only that this "experiment" is being tried out with WBF blessing. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, although I think it wiser to try out experiments on a smaller population than is currently using the CoP guidelines. 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 Mar 14 21:58:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EAw2Z26628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:58:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2EAvut26624 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:57:56 +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 14d8yV-000KpW-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:57:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:12:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>>> > >>>> > 9.1.4 No convention is permitted whose sole benefit, >>>> > or one of whose main benefits, is to deceive >>>> > the opponents intentionally as to: >>>> > >>>> > - the length or strength of a suit, and/or >>>> > - the strength of the hand held >>>> > >>>> > by the player making the call. >>>> > >snip >> >> But whether the reg applies to random minors [or minors with a random >>type rule to decide which to open] is a matter of interpretation. >> >In view of the prec 1D on Kxx Kxx xx AKxxx or Kxx Kxx AKxxx xx, I have >now given permission for this to be used in the YC subject to the >following: One of my pet hates, which seems to be happening an awful lot recently on BLML, and even more on RGB, is quoting something irrelevant to bolster an argument. You open 1D on both the above hands so that 1C may be strong, not because misleading oppos is the main concern, so it is quite different from opening a random minor when you do not need 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 Wed Mar 14 22:22:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EBMga04581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:22:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2EBMZt04540 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:22:35 +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 f2EBMQa20306 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:22:27 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f2EBMQR28345 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:22:26 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:22:25 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 LAA08351 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:22:24 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA21731 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:22:23 GMT Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:22:23 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200103141122.LAA21731@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >In view of the prec 1D on Kxx Kxx xx AKxxx or Kxx Kxx AKxxx xx, I have > >now given permission for this to be used in the YC subject to the > >following: > [rant snipped] > > You open 1D on both the above hands so that 1C may be strong, not > because misleading oppos is the main concern, so it is quite different > from opening a random minor when you do not need to. > I think it is relevant. It is no harder to defend against a 1D opening [unbalanced with D or balanced including Kxx Kxx xx AKxxx or Kxx Kxx AKxxx xx] when unbalanced hands with clubs open 1C and 2C is strong, than it is to defend against the same 1D opening when unbalanced hands with clubs open 2C and 1C is strong. 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 Mar 14 22:52:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EBq8l04646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:52:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2EBq2t04642 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:52:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA18241; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:47:56 +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 MAA22235; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:51:28 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010314125412.00838100@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 Mar 2001 12:54:12 +0100 To: blml@farebrother.cx, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-Reply-To: <200103061913.OAA01795@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:13 6/03/01 -0500, Michael Farebrother wrote: >>Why on earth would anyone feel the need to ask these questions *during >>the auction* when doing so might pass UI to partner or clarify the ops >>system for them? > >Because I'm allowed to? Because the amount of UI partner receives is >lessened by not only asking when my hand gives me a reason to? Because >on the odd occasion I might have a reason to that I don't yet know, >and if I wait until the end of the auction, it's too late? Because >there are certain situations where the meaning of my call - including >Pass - depends on the meaning of their call; and I have no way to know >whether my hand has a reason to take action until I know? AG : that's quite a frequent case in those days of aggressive bidding over forcing openings. In many styles, that hand : QJxx - x - J10xxx - xxx is an obvious overcall of 1C if the opening is a strong club ; if it appears that it was a 'normal club', I pass and nothing is lost ; after all, this hand : AK - xxx - Kx - QJxxxx would also ask-then-pass-if ; IOTTMCO, they are far apart, enough to make it impossible to get UI from the mere question. >Because the Alert Chart (ACBL) says, in bold print, "WHEN IN DOUBT >ABOUT THE MEANING OF AN ALERTED CALL, ASK, DO NOT ASSUME!" >(emphases in the original)? Because *these* opponents I trust to have >their system down (a rarity, I will agree)? Because knowing what's going >on when it's going on allows you a better chance of getting the >"table feel" inferences right? > >Having said all of that, I don't always ask (see other post), especially >if it looks like the opponents are in a more complicated auction than >they are capable of getting right. AG : if playing under a competent directorship, you shouldn't even be afraid of that. 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 Mar 14 23:04:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EC3jp04663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:03:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2EC3ct04659 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:03:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA21689; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:59:45 +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 NAA01371; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:03:16 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010314130601.0082f570@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 Mar 2001 13:06:01 +0100 To: Michael Schmahl , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style In-Reply-To: <3AAEA0A9.611F5026@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:35 13/03/01 -0900, Michael Schmahl wrote: >>From a Friday evening club game: > >Board 8 AJT962 W N E S >W deals 82 P 2S 3C(1) 3H >None vul. Q963 X(2) P P P > 5 >KQ3 854 (1) Intended as Fishbein (takeout >93 AT6 double) >JT42 A7 (2) Intended as Rosenkrantz (showing >KT76 AQJ42 a high club honor) > 7 > KQJ754 > K85 > 983 > >Trick 1: Club to East's Ace >Trick 2: Heart to South's King >Trick 3: Club, ruffed in dummy >Trick 4: Diamond to East's Ace >Trick 5: Club Queen >Trick 6: Club Jack, ruffed with the Jack > >South eventually went down one. > >West mentioned as the hand concluded that she intended her double as >Rosenkrantz. South "called the director"[1]. > >South asserts that had he known that West still had the CK, he would >not have ruffed high. The director, through questions and prior >experience with this pair, knows that "forgetful Fishbein" is the actual >agreement. Thus South is not entitled to the information that West had >intended to show the CK. Nonetheless, armed with the knowledge that >East's 3C call was artificial, he might not have played for clubs to be >6-3. AG : strikes me as illogical. If the bidding is to be taken at face value, and if there was no alert, East would have AKQJ clubs ? His way to play them would be strange indeed. At least, South could have a hint as to what happened. Anyway, there was MI (by the non-alert of 3C, although this could also be a natural 3C bid), so the TD must rule. Obviously, from East's line of play, he didn't know about the Rkrnz meaning of the double (which is strange indeed, in such a bidding). I'm ready to believe West is the culprit, and there was no Rkrnz in this sequence (never heard of Rkrnzing an artificial bid). Thus, the non-alert of XX isn't a factor, because there shoudln't have been any. >How do you rule? Note that ruffing high is bad play; it can never gain >even if clubs are 6-3. Does this affect your decision? AG : yes, if South is an experimented player. His high ruff would be a very bad play. I would dare to qualify it as irrational, but somebody's MMV. If ruffing high would be logical against some trump positions with clubs 6-3, I'd adjust. 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 Mar 14 23:44:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2ECi2U07294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:44:02 +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-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 f2EChtt07261 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:43:56 +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 f2EChpF74949 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:43:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314073327.00a9f800@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 Mar 2001 07:43:46 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <003201c0ab92$fcaf5da0$28397bd5@dodona> References: <200103122334.PAA05879@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:54 AM 3/13/01, Grattan wrote: > Consequent damage is damage resulting from the >infraction/irregularity for which the NOS is entitled to >indemnity. Subsequent damage is damage occurring >after the irregularity but not resulting from the >violation, the cause of it being attributed to the >irrational, wild or gambling action of the NOS. Grattan, please. I'm reduced to begging. "Subsequent damage is damage occurring after the irregularity but not resulting from the violation..." only to the folks on BLML and in other rarefied circles particularly knowledgeable about bridge laws. This is too close to, but very different from, what "subsequent" means to an ordinary English speaker. When Mr. Kaplan first proposed his doctrine, he carefully made repeated references to damage which was "subsequent but not consequent"; how this turned into just "subsequent" I don't know. Be very careful not to let this idiosyncratic usage find its way into print, or any official distribution, lest BLML spend thousands of messages having to "interpret" yet another passage in the laws (or regulations) rendered hopelessly confusing by a poor choice of a word. I'm not one who repeatedly carps at poor word choices already in TFLB, but here I see an opportunity to prevent a problem before it happens. 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 Mar 15 01:51:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EEp4f22656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 01:51:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f2EEovt22619 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 01:50:57 +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 f2EEoqI48930 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:50:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314091928.00b80230@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 Mar 2001 09:50:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <001e01c0abbe$242c68c0$f2a201d5@pbncomputer> References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:04 AM 3/13/01, David wrote: >It's not a question of penalising non-offenders. So David B. says. But what really matters is how the non-offenders see it. Loss of legal rights is a "penalty" by any definition of the word. When we deny redress to the NOs, they can only assume that we do so because they did something illegal to cause them to lose something they would have had they not done whatever they did. It's not at all surprising that players won't understand what we mean when we tell them "you didn't do anything wrong, so this isn't a penalty, but nevertheless we're taking away the score you would have gotten had you not done it" -- I'd worry about the mental state of anyone who thought he did understand it. >It's a question of not >allowing people to play cost-free ridiculous bridge simply because their >opponents have committed an infraction. But why should we be concerned? We don't question "allowing" people to play cost-free ridiculous bridge when their opponents haven't committed an infraction; they do it all the time, and we all agree that it's a normal part of the game. Why should we suddenly start reacting to cost-free ridiculous bridge just because the opponents *did* commit an infraction? >If a player revokes, then he is >penalised for the revoke, and should not expect to avoid being penalised >for it simply because he would not have had the opportunity to do it if >the infraction had not occurred. Of course he should, and he will. TFLB tells him in so many words to expect "the score [for] the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". Why would he not expect to "avoid" being penalized for something that is definitionally impossible given the stated premise? Should he really expect the score for "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred but the subsequent egregious error had occurred" when that situation is an unimaginable logical impossibility? Expect the unimaginable? That's asking a bit much of mere mortals no matter how much we might try to "educate" them. 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 Mar 15 02:02:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF2LW26660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2EF28t26606 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF23H09389 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:02:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF6BDE.B63465F@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:02:22 +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] Subsequent damage - again References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312173731.00b8d1f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010313162756.00ab5830@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: > > > Once more: > > Table result: N-S +450 (top), E-W -450 (zero). > > Hypothetical result absent infraction and egregious error: N-S +300 > (zero), E-W -300 (top). > > Hypothetical result with infraction but absent egregious error: N-S > -50 (zero), E-W +50 (top). > > Hypothetical result absent infraction but with egregious > error: Impossible, meaningless, a logical contradiction. The > egregious error could not have occurred absent the infraction. We > cannot find a hypothetical result that satisfies the conditions, and > cannot base our adjustment on a conclusion we cannot determine. > The actual case was less black-and-white than Eric now reproduces it, but let's go on from this point. > So if we were to follow Marv's interpretation, the finding of > "infraction" would turn what would otherwise be N-S's top into a zero, > while the finding of "egregious error" would turn what would otherwise > be E-W's top into a zero. Equal punishment implies equal > culpability. Do we really want to punish E-W's egregious error every > bit as harshly as N-S's violation of the laws? Should acting stupidly > have the same legal consequences as acting illegally? Have the two > sides here really committed equivalent "offenses"? > Well, in a bridge sense, they have. If I had been their partners, I would have shouted far louder against opening leader who failed to cash three winners, than to misexplainer who momentarily forgot a part of our system. So in the sense of "deserving what they got", EW in this case were far more deserving for their bottom (which was a push anyway). Eric correctly points to a problem : if we want to separate subsequent from consequent, then it is often impossible to determine the "what would have happened without the infraction but with the error". I agree that in this case (and many others) it is impossible : you cannot determine what would have happened in 5Di, as the same error is impossible. But to jump from this to stating that it is wrong to ever attempt that exercise is a leap that I would not dare to make. In many cases, it IS possible to calculate the differences. Even in this one, it is quite possible. Perhaps rather than throwing away the problem, we might be trying to solve it ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 15 02:02:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF2U226703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2EF2At26615 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF26H09410 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:02:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF6E14.AE88546E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:11:48 +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] Subsequent damage - again References: <003701c0abe4$9db127a0$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: "Tim West-meads" > > > > > The thing that confuses me about this situation is how there was an > > infraction. IOW how can UI suggest that 5S is better than doubling > (or > > making a forcing pass of) 5D when it quite obviously isn't - and won't > be > > even if you place the opposing cards more favourably for NOS in 4S. > > > > I was looking at a theoretical situation, perhaps not the actual one, > and should have made that clear. > > N/S push to 5S over a 5D save. If there was UI that demonstrably > suggested the 5S bid, and passing 5DX is logical, then bidding 5S is an > infraction, whether successful or not (L16A). > Indeed the case was not like this. North misinterpreted South's bid and as a consequence they were in 5S in stead of 4Sp (no use of UI involved). In the meantime, and for only one round, North had also misexpained the bidding to East. By some convoluted way, it could have been possible for East-West to end up in 5DiX-2. As I said, I did not go into that but am assuming it as a possible basis for an AS. > E/W have three tricks off the top, but unaccountably, irrationally, fail > to take them, so table result of -450 stands. Their damage was > self-inflicted, not a consequence of the 5S bid, so no redress. > > Reconsidering, I believe the right adjustment for N/S is -50, "the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable." The profit they received > in the score by bidding 5S must be taken away, even if it came from > subsequent rather than consequent damage. > Maybe that can be the correct ruling, but I did not want to split the scores in this team match. > I guess my brain is still a little scrambled from putting my bicycle > helmet into a car's windshield two weeks ago. > I presume you had put your head in that helmet prior to it hitting the windshield :-) -- 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 Mar 15 02:03:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF2dO26728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:39 +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.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2EF2Et26635 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF28H09421 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:02:09 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF71EF.CEB65B6E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:28:15 +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] Subsequent damage - again References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313092901.00b8b7d0@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: > > > First a rant: Could we please be a bit more careful in our use of the > English language? OK, BLML does need its own idiosyncratic "shorthand" > to keep posts from being unduly long and repetitive, but when our > shorthand strays too far from ordinary English we run the risk that it > may eventually find its way into interpretations, or even rules, that > will be read incorrectly or confusingly by folks who aren't privy to > BLML's internal jargon. I leave others to judge whether the authors of > the CoP have already fallen victim. > rant accepted and far too often ignored. > Damage is "subsequent" (to an infraction) if it occurred after, as > opposed to before, the infraction. Period. > > Subsequent damage may be either "consequent" (to the infraction, i.e. > caused by it) or "self-inflicted" (caused not by the infraction, but > rather by the action of the NOS). > > Self-inflicted damage may be either "egregiously self-inflicted" > ("ESI", i.e. caused by an action of the NOS which was "an egregious > error", or a "wild, gambling or irrational action", or whatever it > takes in the relevant jurisdiction for the self-inflicted damage to > affect the outcome of the adjudication) or "non-egregiously > self-inflicted" ("NESI"). > I agree with Eric that we should not be using "subsequent" when we mean "non-consequent". ESI it is ! > The CoP says that if all of the subsequent damage is either consequent > or NESI, the NOs get redress for all of it. I expect we all agree that > this is as it should be. Yep. > But it also says that if the subsequent > damage is a mix of consequent, NESI and ESI damage, the NOs get redress > only for the consequent damage; the NESI baby gets thrown out with the > ESI bathwater. Is this what the authors of the CoP intended? If not, > see the rant above. > It is indeed an unexplored option to seeing a mix of 3 types of damage, but I expect I would redress the NESI damage as well as the consequent one, and try to distinguish between ESI and NESI. We might be able to construct cases. Normal result either +420 or +450, finesse badly taken, so only +420, and then a revoke to boot. Possible correction to 10 tricks, but not to eleven. > >I thought the CoP was supposed to be an "official" interpretation of > >the Laws; is it not? If so, it pretty clearly spells out what is > >considered damage, and even more clearly spells out what we do when > >the NO's revoke after the infraction; so I'm not clear on why there > >should be any debate. Or are we debating or whether the CoP should be > >changed? > > But the CoP doesn't "spell[] out what we do when the NOs revoke after > the infraction"; it tells us only that "a revoke by the innocent side > subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score". It doesn't > say how, or due to what considerations, or by what method, or to what > specific effect on the results of the adjudication. These were the > original questions on the table. > Well Eric, I believe the discussion we were having was whether or not we correct after NOS revoke, not how we did this. When the CoP says it "affects", I interpret that as saying : "yes we correct", not "no we don't", and I even believe that you are capable of carrying out this correction in even the most difficult of cases. > I believe we reached (or assumed to start with) some consensus that > when the situation in which the revoke occurred would have occurred > similarly absent the original infraction, we adjust (for the NOS) on > the presumption that the revoke would have occurred absent the > infraction (and for the OS on the presumption that it wouldn't > have). But we have a problem when the revoke could not have occurred > absent the infraction, such as when the player who revoked on defense > would have been declarer, or dummy, or defending a different strain in > which the play would have gone completely differently. The CoP says > "will affect", not "might affect", so we know that the NOS must get a > worse score than we would have awarded had they not revoked. The > emerging consensus seemed to be that in that case the best we can do is > measure the self-inflicted damage in matchpoints, determine an adjusted > matchpoint result based solely on L12C (which says nothing about > self-inflicted damage), award the OS the matchpoints given by the > latter, and award the NOS that score minus the matchpoints given by the > former. Whether we like this method or not, it unarguably meets the > requirements of the CoP. > Your first point is moot : we also correct for lesser errors than revokes when we are judging the same strain, so saying that we correct in the same strain meets the criteria of the CoP is not a valid argument. Of course the CoP means that we also correct if the revoke is in a different strain. > So that method could answer the original question, which was about a > revoke, since the CoP makes it clear that damage caused by a revoke is > assumed to be ESI. It works equally well for self-inflicted damage not > the result of a revoke, if we believe what the CoP says. But I can't > rid myself of the suspicion that this is wrong; that the intention of > the authors of the CoP was that we substract from the L12C adjudication > not the matchpoints lost by the NOS's self-inflicted damage, but rather > only that portion of the self-inflicted damage that was ESI. > I agree with that and would apply it as such. > The thread expanded beyond (or wandered away from, depending on your > point of view) the original topic when some of us (myself included) > questioned the implicit assumption in the CoP that damage from a revoke > should necessarily be treated as ESI. David S. focused the debate by > pointing out that the EBU has chosen to consider damage from a revoke > as NESI, so the question is more than merely theoretical. Personally, > I prefer the EBU's view to the CoP's. But I am troubled (as Herman > seems to be, probably for different reasons) by the fact that the EBU's > view seems to violate the apparent consensus that the NOS should > sustain the self-inflicted damage from the revoke at least in the case > when they could have committed the same revoke in the same situation in > the adjudicated presumptive contract. So the "best" answer may lie > somewhere in between. > > Unfortunately, however, there is no room "in between" the CoP and EBU > views; a revoke, being a single indivisible occurrence, must generate > either ESI or NESI damage. My solution, which ignores the CoP > entirely, is to abandon the notion of evaluating "self-inflicted > damage" altogether, leaving the distinction between ESI and NESI damage > a non-issue, and revert to simply applying the words of L12C as > written, under which the NOS's revoke either does or does not affect > their adjusted score depending on whether it was not or was "likely" > that they would not have revoked absent the original infraction. > Well, Eric, you have given a masterful analysis, and I am fully in agreement with it. If you will now admit that your last statement is a personal opinion about how the laws ought to be interpreted, but not how they are in majority being done so, then we will be a bit further along the road. So, having ridden ourselves of Eric (sorry Eric), we are now faced with still the same question: The EBU have (probably against the majority of the world) decided that revokes are NESI rather than ESI. Are they aware that this is a severely different interpretation from the RotW, even from the CoP, and do they wish to continue this practice ? Do other NCBO's wish to follow suit ? -- 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 Mar 15 02:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF2fg26735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2EF2Gt26647 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF2BH09457 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:02:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF740C.944E191A@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:37:16 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke 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: > > Todd Zimnoch writes > >There is a catch. Position after the first revoke is: > > > >> 8 > >> J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > >> 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > >> -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. > >>Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and > >>-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he > >>-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked > >>8 Q52 twice in hearts. > >> -- > >> 93 How do you rule? > >> -- > >> 43 > > > >Had declarer not revoked the second time, declarer scores 4 tricks and > >returns two to the opponents. Declarer would only get 2 tricks without the > >benefit of the 2nd revoke. Apply 64C to this situation? > Great analysis, Todd. Een bank vooruit en een kus van de juffrouw. (ask for a translation later) > Yes, this is the point of the question. If you apply L64C as to the > equity after the first revoke then you would seem to have damage so you > should adjust. > > The player who rang me up to ask this has had it happen to him twice > in three months! While the word equity does not appear in L64C, the > word damage does, so the question is how do you interpret damage? > > In the other situation a player with a singleton club revoked by > ruffing in 4H. She was now going down in 4H - until she discarded her > club loser on a second revoke! > Since it would be possible for a player to realise that he needed to revoke a second time in order to win a trick, this is a situation in which the penalty of L64B is insufficient and L64C should kick in. It may be clear that this was inadvertent, but we are often ruling "I know that you are not cheating but if you were you would have done the same thing". We should be careful however, since a full-knowing player would have acted differently - he would have corrected the revoke, making it non-established (at practically no cost to declarer). But then again, he might havce discovered his first revoke exactly after playing to the next trick from dummy - at which point the second revoke IS indeed the best option. Since we have applied L64B to a revoke, and it did not put the NOS back into the position prior to that revoke, it seems clear to me that we need to apply L64C 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 Thu Mar 15 02:03:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF2ii26745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.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 f2EF2It26663 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF2EH09481 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:02:14 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF7775.F3471154@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:51:49 +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] Double revoke References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313114555.00b8cc80@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: > > > > >Had declarer not revoked the second time, declarer scores 4 tricks and > >returns two to the opponents. Declarer would only get 2 tricks > >without the benefit of the 2nd revoke. Apply 64C to this situation? > > No -- although Todd may be right that the "catch" in David S.'s setting > of the problem was the correctness of ignoring this particular red herring. > > A side is "damaged" by an opponent's infraction(s) if their result at > the table is less than their "equity position", which is the most > favorable result that was likely had there been no > infraction. Therefore "damage" can only be "established" when a table > result has been achieved and such a comparison can be made. E-W's (the > NOS's) equity position -- their most favorable likely result had their > been no infraction -- was taking one trick. Their table result was for > two tricks, so they did better than their equity position. L64C says > that they get either the table result or the score for their equity > position, whichever is better; it is satisfied by the two-trick penalty > for the multiple revokes. The equity position is based on the > presumption that there is no infraction, so does not change when an > infraction is committed; there is no "new" artificial equity position > established to which the table outcome achieved after another, > subsequent infraction is compared assess damage. > Sorry Eric, but that won't do. Their "equity" position was 1 trick before the first revoke, but it may well have been something else at any of the 32 cards played before that. The equity position changes all the time, and an infraction is simply one way of changing it. Suppose someone revokes on the first trick. It is discovered on the third one. You tell the players that such and such tricks are already being transferred. Now he revokes again in the ninth trick. What is the equity position before this revoke ? If it includes all eight previous tricks, it should include all previous penalties as well. So the equity position after the first revoke is : >> 8 >> J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the >> 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. >> -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >>Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and >>-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >>-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >>8 Q52 twice in hearts. >> -- >> 93 How do you rule? >> -- >> 43 Heart jack has just been played from the table, and now declarer notices his revoke. He stands to lose 1 spade trick and 1 penalty trick, since he can avoid winning a trick with the heart nine by unblocking it. Equity position : 2 tricks to defence. By applying the eureka below, we arrive at the same position : > But wait! Aha! Eureka! Perhaps Todd's analysis has uncovered the > catch for us after all. What about L72B1? "Whenever... an offender > could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity > would be likely to damage the non-offending side... [the TD] shall... > award[] an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side > gained an advantage through the irregularity." S certainly "could have > known" that, having revoked on the HA to lose two tricks relative to > the NOS's equity position, he could then "gain back" one trick by > subsequently revoking on the HJ. So should we rule only two tricks to N-S? > No we should not. At the moment before the jack is played, the equity position is oly 1 trick to defenders (declarer correcting his non-esatblished revoke). At the moment the jack is played, this turns into 2 tricks (unblocking the nine). And then the second revoke comes, which now gains a trick and costs 2. Final solution : 2 tricks to defence. But if you reverse the 5 and 3 of hearts, there is no legal way for declarer to escape for 3 tricks, and that is what he should get. In a way, this case is simpler, so the original is more interesting. -- 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 Mar 15 02:03:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF2mJ26755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2EF2Lt26674 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF2GH09500 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:02:16 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF783C.2D9851@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:55:08 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103131906.OAA13912@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: > > > Alternatively, we can consider the defender's equity at this point. > (In contrast to Eric, I believe L64C applies here. It specifically > includes revokes not subject to penalty.) The defenders' equity is the > spade trick they are due plus a _one_ trick revoke penalty already > "earned;" thus two tricks in all. That's what the final ruling gives > them, hence no change. > > I believe the ruling would be different if declarer's low heart were > higher than the 5 or his high one higher than the J. In that layout, > there would be no legal way of avoiding a _two_ trick revoke penalty, > and you can apply either L64C or L72B1 to give the defenders three > tricks, their equity in the (modified version of the) layout above. > I want to add that I composed my answer before reading Steve's. Good problem, David ! > In any case, I believe David posed the original problem because we need > to judge "equity" in the above layouts. How do we do it? As > unfavorably as possible to the revoker? Or on the "L70 definition of > normal?" Or on the L12C2 standard (in fact separate standards for the > OS and NOS)? I believe the latter is correct, and here the necessary > unblocking play seems simple enough. Another point that might be > argued is whether the play is judged assuming the revoker has had the > applicable laws explained. I think it has to so, else players > unfamiliar with the laws have a huge disadvantage. In other words, > here a declarer unfamiliar with the laws might play the hearts in > random order, but once he is told it's better to avoid winning a heart > trick in hand, he will get it right. (Specifically, it is not "at all > probable" that he will get it wrong.) I think we judge on that basis. > -- Exactly, and we must consider this at the point after leading the jack, since he has an extra chance of escaping without damage before he does this - we do not need to give him that extra advantage. But the equity position before the second revoke must include full knoowledge of the revoke laws concerning the earlier one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 15 02:11:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF2na26759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:50 +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 f2EF2Mt26681 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF2IH09524 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:02:18 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF78AA.D99917F8@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:56:58 +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] Double revoke References: <200103132017.MAA26729@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: > > > So assuming there were two infractions here, we'd determine the NO's > expected result just before the second revoke occurred, but after the > first one. This brings to mind two questions: > > (1) Is a second revoke in the same suit a separate infraction, or a > continuation of the first one? > > I suppose (1) could go either way, > but there's no particularly good reason based in the Laws to treat two > revokes as one big infraction. The problem I have with this > conclusion is that 64B2 *seems* (at least to me) to indicate that the > Laws' authors intended that revoking twice (or more) in the same suit > should carry the same penalty as revoking once; and the above > reasoning, while it appears to be correct, seems to undercut the > apparent intent. I think this is just another case where the WBFLC > will have to decide what they really want and modify the Laws > accordingly. > No, I believe it is clear that the second revoke is treated in L64B as a special kind of revoke, one that carries no penalty, but a revoke nevertheless, and a separate infraction. > -- 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/ -- 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 Mar 15 02:26:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF40E26963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:04:01 +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 f2EF3Bt26845 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:03:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF37H10095 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:03:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF78AA.D99917F8@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:56:58 +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] Double revoke References: <200103132017.MAA26729@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: > > > So assuming there were two infractions here, we'd determine the NO's > expected result just before the second revoke occurred, but after the > first one. This brings to mind two questions: > > (1) Is a second revoke in the same suit a separate infraction, or a > continuation of the first one? > > I suppose (1) could go either way, > but there's no particularly good reason based in the Laws to treat two > revokes as one big infraction. The problem I have with this > conclusion is that 64B2 *seems* (at least to me) to indicate that the > Laws' authors intended that revoking twice (or more) in the same suit > should carry the same penalty as revoking once; and the above > reasoning, while it appears to be correct, seems to undercut the > apparent intX-Mozilla-Status: 0009just another case where the WBFLC > will have to decide what they really want and modify the Laws > accordingly. > No, I believe it is clear that the second revoke is treated in L64B as a special kind of revoke, one that carries no penalty, but a revoke nevertheless, and a separate infraction. > -- 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/ -- 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 Mar 15 02:36:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EFa1V29590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:36:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2EFZpt29586 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:35:52 +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 14dDJI-000IZs-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:35:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:34:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst writes >>In article , David Stevenson >> writes >>>>> > >>>>> > 9.1.4 No convention is permitted whose sole benefit, >>>>> > or one of whose main benefits, is to deceive >>>>> > the opponents intentionally as to: >>>>> > >>>>> > - the length or strength of a suit, and/or >>>>> > - the strength of the hand held >>>>> > >>>>> > by the player making the call. >>>>> > >>snip >>> >>> But whether the reg applies to random minors [or minors with a random >>>type rule to decide which to open] is a matter of interpretation. >>> >>In view of the prec 1D on Kxx Kxx xx AKxxx or Kxx Kxx AKxxx xx, I have >>now given permission for this to be used in the YC subject to the >>following: > > One of my pet hates, which seems to be happening an awful lot recently >on BLML, and even more on RGB, is quoting something irrelevant to >bolster an argument. > > You open 1D on both the above hands so that 1C may be strong, not >because misleading oppos is the main concern, so it is quite different >from opening a random minor when you do not need to. > > Ahem. In "random minor" you open 1D when you have diamonds, 1 club when you have clubs and either when you're balanced. there is nothing there which is disruptive, or designed to damage the opponents. It is your opinion, after Vernes, that showing the relative length of minor in balanced hands is bad bridge. the prec example is used to show that the relative length of the minors is *not* relevant, and *not* destructive. -- 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 Mar 15 02:41:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF3mU26927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:03:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2EF2xt26799 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:03:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF2tH09914 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:02:55 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF6E14.AE88546E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:11:48 +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] Subsequent damage - again References: <003701c0abe4$9db127a0$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: "Tim West-meads" > > > > > The thing that confuses me about this situation is how there was an > > infraction. IOW how can UI suggest that 5S is better than doubling > (or > > making a forcing pass of) 5D when it quite obviously isn't - and won't > be > > even if you place the opposing cards more favourably for NOS in 4S. > > > > I was looking at a theoretical situation, perhaps not the actual one, > and should have made that clear. > > N/S push to 5S over a 5D save. If there was UI that demonstrably > suggested the 5S bid, and passing 5DX is logical, then bidding 5S is an > infraction, whether successful or not (L16A). > Indeed the case was not like this. North misinterpreted South's bid and as a consequence they were in 5S in stead of 4Sp (no use of UI involved). In the meantime, and for only one round, North had also misexpained the bidding to East. By some convoluted way, it could have been possible for East-West to end up in 5DiX-2. As I said, I did not go into that but am assuming it as a possible basis for an AS. > E/W have three tricks off the top, but unaccountably, irrationally, fail > to take them, so table result of -450 stands. Their damage was > self-inflicted, not a consequence of the 5S bid, so no redress. > > Reconsidering, I believe the right adjustment for N/S is -50, "the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable." The profit they received > in the score by bidding 5S must be taken away, even if it came from > subsequent rather than consequent damage. > Maybe that can be the correct ruling, but I did not want to split the scores in this team match. > I guess my brain is still a little scrambled froX-Mozilla-Status: 0009> helmet into a car's windshield two weeks ago. > I presume you had put your head in that helmet prior to it hitting the windshield :-) -- 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 Mar 15 02:56:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF3ww26955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:03:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2EF39t26839 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:03:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF34H10052 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:03:05 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF783C.2D9851@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:55:08 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103131906.OAA13912@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: > > > Alternatively, we can consider the defender's equity at this point. > (In contrast to Eric, I believe L64C applies here. It specifically > includes revokes not subject to penalty.) The defenders' equity is the > spade trick they are due plus a _one_ trick revoke penalty already > "earned;" thus two tricks in all. That's what the final ruling gives > them, hence no change. > > I believe the ruling would be different if declarer's low heart were > higher than the 5 or his high one higher than the J. In that layout, > there would be no legal way of avoiding a _two_ trick revoke penalty, > and you can apply either L64C or L72B1 to give the defenders three > tricks, their equity in the (modified version of the) layout above. > I want to add that I composed my answer before reading Steve's. Good problem, David ! > In any case, I believe David posed the original problem because we need > to judge "equity" in the above layouts. How do we do it? As > unfavorably as possible to the revoker? Or on the "L70 definition of > normal?" Or on the L12C2 standard (in fact separate standards for the > OS and NOS)? I believe the latter is correct, and here the necessary > unblocking play seems simple enough. Another point that might be > argued is whether the play is judged assuming the revoker has had the > applicable laws explained. I think it has to so, else players > unfamiliar with the laws have a huge disadvantage. In other words, > here aX-Mozilla-Status: 0009ith the laws might play the hearts in > random order, but once he is told it's better to avoid winning a heart > trick in hand, he will get it right. (Specifically, it is not "at all > probable" that he will get it wrong.) I think we judge on that basis. > -- Exactly, and we must consider this at the point after leading the jack, since he has an extra chance of escaping without damage before he does this - we do not need to give him that extra advantage. But the equity position before the second revoke must include full knoowledge of the revoke laws concerning the earlier one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 15 03:08:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EG8Ra08149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:08:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2EG8Lt08145 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:08:21 +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 f2EG8Ha47294 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:08:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314100625.00b80a50@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 Mar 2001 11:08:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:17 PM 3/13/01, Todd wrote: > Around where I play, openings based on LTC is treated as a > different system by the players playing it. A semi-standard prealert > of it is, "We open based on losing trick count. We will open as > light as 10 and pass with as many as 15 high card points." What I don't get is how that's any different from, "We open based on ordinary point-count modified by a very large amount of individual intitutive judgment. We will open as light as 10 and pass with as many as 15 high card points." We can debate whether such pre-alerts are appropriate given the requirements for full disclosure (I would vote yes), but I don't see how we could argue that one would be and the other wouldn't. Granted, if this means opening or passing a large enough number of hands on which someone else would act differently (or, as Todd has pointed out, some class of hands, regardless of number, on which the deviations from what someone else would do are radical enough), it might be reasonable to call this "a different system". But it is equally reasonable or unreasonable to do so based on the actual deviations from the basis of comparison regardless of the reasons for choosing to deviate. That you open particular 10-counts and pass particular 15-counts is a matter of "system". In my terminology, the reason why you choose to open particular 10-counts and pass particular 15-counts is a matter of "judgment". If you want to call the reasons for as well as the facts of what you do "system" as well, that's not unreasonable, notwithstanding that you would be using the term differently from TFLB (viz. L40E1). What's not reasonable, however, is to call the reasons for what you do "system" if you are capable of expressing those reasons in quantitative terms and "judgment" if you are not. When I first read about point-count, the book said subtract a point for an aceless hand, and subtract a point for a doubleton QJ. From this I naively believed I had learned two things: (1) aceless hands and doubleton QJs are overvalued by the simple 4-3-2-1-count; (2) holding no aces and holding doubleton QJ are each worth -1 points in the Goren point-count. 45 years later I have a far more profound understanding of this lesson, and I understand now what Goren was trying to teach me all along: these are simply two different ways of expressing the same concept. So imagine I was playing 12-14 NT openings and I picked up QJ/Jxx/KJxx/KQxx and passed as dealer. Now I'm in front of an AC accused of illegally playing a different system from my partner, who has stipulated that it would never occur to him to pass that hand. The committee asks me why I chose to pass. I might say: (a) "Because hands with no aces and a doubleton QJ really suck, so I decided to pretend I had an 11-count." Or I might say: (b) "Because I subtracted a point for having no aces and a point for the doubleton QJ, so I only had an 11-count." To me, these are alternative ways of expressing the same concept; it shouldn't matter which particular phraseology I happen to chance to use on the spur of the moment. But if a different quantitative hand-evaluation algorithm creates a presumption of a difference in system rather than in style or judgment, I am innocent if I say (a) but guilty if I say (b). That just isn't right. 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 Mar 15 03:11:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF3i826919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:03:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.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 f2EF2wt26796 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:02:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF2rH09898 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:02:53 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF6BDE.B63465F@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:02:22 +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] Subsequent damage - again References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312173731.00b8d1f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010313162756.00ab5830@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: > > > Once more: > > Table result: N-S +450 (top), E-W -450 (zero). > > Hypothetical result absent infraction and egregious error: N-S +300 > (zero), E-W -300 (top). > > Hypothetical result with infraction but absent egregious error: N-S > -50 (zero), E-W +50 (top). > > Hypothetical result absent infraction but with egregious > error: Impossible, meaningless, a logical contradiction. The > egregious error could not have occurred absent the infraction. We > cannot find a hypothetical result that satisfies the conditions, and > cannot base our adjustment on a conclusion we cannot determine. > The actual case was less black-and-white than Eric now reproduces it, but let's go on from this point. > So if we were to follow Marv's interpretation, the finding of > "infraction" would turn what would otherwise be N-S's top into a zero, > while the finding of "egregious error" would turn what would otherwise > be E-W's top into a zero. Equal punishment implies equal > culpability. Do we really want to punish E-W's egregious error every > bit as harshly as N-S's violation of the laws? Should acting stupidly > have the same legal consequences as acting illegally? Have the two > sides here really committed equivalent "offenses"? > Well, in a bridge sense, they have. If I had been their partners, I would have shouted far louder against opening leader who failed to cash three winners, than to misexplainer who momentarily forgot a part of our system. So in the sense of "deserving what they got", EW in this case were far more deserving for their bottom (which was a push anyway). Eric correctly points to a problem : if we want to separate subsequent from consequent, then it is often impossible to determine the "what would have happened without the infraction but with the error". I agree that in this case (and many others) it is impossible : you cannot determine what would have happened in 5Di, as the same error is impossible. But to jump from this to stating that it is wrong to ever attempt that exercise is a leap that I would not dare to make. In many cases, it IS possible to calculate the differences. Even in this one, it is quite X-Mozilla-Status: 0009ather than throwing away the problem, we might be trying to solve it ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 15 03:24:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF43f26970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:04:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2EF34t26821 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:03:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF30H09979 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:03:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF740C.944E191A@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:37:16 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke 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: > > Todd Zimnoch writes > >There is a catch. Position after the first revoke is: > > > >> 8 > >> J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > >> 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > >> -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. > >>Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and > >>-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he > >>-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked > >>8 Q52 twice in hearts. > >> -- > >> 93 How do you rule? > >> -- > >> 43 > > > >Had declarer not revoked the second time, declarer scores 4 tricks and > >returns two to the opponents. Declarer would only get 2 tricks without the > >benefit of the 2nd revoke. Apply 64C to this situation? > Great analysis, Todd. Een bank vooruit en een kus van de juffrouw. (ask for a translation later) > Yes, this is the point of the question. If you apply L64C as to the > equity after the first revoke then you would seem to have damage so you > should adjust. > > The player who rang me up to ask this has had it happen to him twice > in three months! While the word equity does not appear in L64C, the > word damage does, so the question is how do you interpret damage? > > In the other situation a player with a singleton club revoked by > ruffing in 4H. She was now going down in 4H - until she discarded her > club loser on a second revoke! > Since it would be possible for a player to realise that he needed to revoke a second time in order to win a trick, this is a situation in which the penalty of L64B is insufficient and L64C should kick in. It may be clear that this was inadvertent, but we are often ruling "I know that you are not cheating but if you were you would have done the same thing". We should be careful however, since a full-knowing player would have acted differently - he would have X-Mozilla-Status: 0009 making it non-established (at practically no cost to declarer). But then again, he might havce discovered his first revoke exactly after playing to the next trick from dummy - at which point the second revoke IS indeed the best option. Since we have applied L64B to a revoke, and it did not put the NOS back into the position prior to that revoke, it seems clear to me that we need to apply L64C 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 Thu Mar 15 03:26:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF3vd26951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:03:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2EF37t26832 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:03:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF32H10017 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:03:02 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF7775.F3471154@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:51:49 +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] Double revoke References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313114555.00b8cc80@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: > > > > >Had declarer not revoked the second time, declarer scores 4 tricks and > >returns two to the opponents. Declarer would only get 2 tricks > >without the benefit of the 2nd revoke. Apply 64C to this situation? > > No -- although Todd may be right that the "catch" in David S.'s setting > of the problem was the correctness of ignoring this particular red herring. > > A side is "damaged" by an opponent's infraction(s) if their result at > the table is less than their "equity position", which is the most > favorable result that was likely had there been no > infraction. Therefore "damage" can only be "established" when a table > result has been achieved and such a comparison can be made. E-W's (the > NOS's) equity position -- their most favorable likely result had their > been no infraction -- was taking one trick. Their table result was for > two tricks, so they did better than their equity position. L64C says > that they get either the table result or the score for their equity > position, whichever is better; it is satisfied by the two-trick penalty > for the multiple revokes. The equity position is based on the > presumption that there is no infraction, so does not change when an > infraction is committed; there is no "new" artificial equity position > established to which the table outcome achieved after another, > subsequent infraction is compared assess damage. > Sorry Eric, but that won't do. Their "equity" position was 1 trick before the first revoke, but it may well have been something else at any of the 32 cards played before that. The equity position changes all the time, and an infraction is simply one way of changing it. Suppose someone revokes on the first trick. It is discovered on the third one. You tell the players that such and such tricks are already being transferred. Now he revokes again in the ninth trick. What is the equity position before this revoke ? If it includes all eight previous tricks, it should include all previous penalties as well. So the equity position after the first revoke is : >> 8 >> J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the >> 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. >> -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. >>Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and >>-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he >>-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked >>8 Q52 twice in hearts. >> -- >> 93 How do you rule? >> -- >> 43 Heart jack has just been played from the table, and now declarer notices his revoke. He stands to lose 1 spade trick and 1 penalty trick, since he can avoid winning a trick with the heart nine by unblocking it. Equity position : 2 tricks to defence. By applying the eureka below, we arrive at the same position : > But wait! Aha! Eureka! Perhaps Todd's analysis has uncovered the > catch for us after all. What about L72B1? "Whenever... an offender > could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity > would be likely to damage the non-offending side... [the TD] shall... > award[] an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side > gained an advantage through the irregularity." S certainly "could have > known" that, having revoked on the HA to lose two tricks relative to > the NOS's equity position, he could then "gain back" one trick by > subsequently revoking on the HJ. So should we rule only two tricks to N-S? > No we should not. X-Mozilla-Status: 0009the jack is played, the equity position is oly 1 trick to defenders (declarer correcting his non-esatblished revoke). At the moment the jack is played, this turns into 2 tricks (unblocking the nine). And then the second revoke comes, which now gains a trick and costs 2. Final solution : 2 tricks to defence. But if you reverse the 5 and 3 of hearts, there is no legal way for declarer to escape for 3 tricks, and that is what he should get. In a way, this case is simpler, so the original is more interesting. -- 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 Mar 15 03:41:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EF3rU26940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:03:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2EF32t26812 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:03:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.3]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2EF2vH09929 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:02:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AAF71EF.CEB65B6E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:28:15 +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] Subsequent damage - again References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313092901.00b8b7d0@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: > > > First a rant: Could we please be a bit more careful in our use of the > English language? OK, BLML does need its own idiosyncratic "shorthand" > to keep posts from being unduly long and repetitive, but when our > shorthand strays too far from ordinary English we run the risk that it > may eventually find its way into interpretations, or even rules, that > will be read incorrectly or confusingly by folks who aren't privy to > BLML's internal jargon. I leave others to judge whether the authors of > the CoP have already fallen victim. > rant accepted and far too often ignored. > Damage is "subsequent" (to an infraction) if it occurred after, as > opposed to before, the infraction. Period. > > Subsequent damage may be either "consequent" (to the infraction, i.e. > caused by it) or "self-inflicted" (caused not by the infraction, but > rather by the action of the NOS). > > Self-inflicted damage may be either "egregiously self-inflicted" > ("ESI", i.e. caused by an action of the NOS which was "an egregious > error", or a "wild, gambling or irrational action", or whatever it > takes in the relevant jurisdiction for the self-inflicted damage to > affect the outcome of the adjudication) or "non-egregiously > self-inflicted" ("NESI"). > I agree with Eric that we should not be using "subsequent" when we mean "non-consequent". ESI it is ! > The CoP says that if all of the subsequent damage is either consequent > or NESI, the NOs get redress for all of it. I expect we all agree that > this is as it should be. Yep. > But it also says that if the subsequent > damage is a mix of consequent, NESI and ESI damage, the NOs get redress > only for the consequent damage; the NESI baby gets thrown out with the > ESI bathwater. Is this what the authors of the CoP intended? If not, > see the rant above. > It is indeed an unexplored option to seeing a mix of 3 types of damage, but I expect I would redress the NESI damage as well as the consequent one, and try to distinguish between ESI and NESI. We might be able to construct cases. Normal result either +420 or +450, finesse badly taken, so only +420, and then a revoke to boot. Possible correction to 10 tricks, but not to eleven. > >I thought the CoP was supposed to be an "official" interpretation of > >the Laws; is it not? If so, it pretty clearly spells out what is > >considered damage, and even more clearly spells out what we do when > >the NO's revoke after the infraction; so I'm not clear on why there > >should be any debate. Or are we debating or whether the CoP should be > >changed? > > But the CoP doesn't "spell[] out what we do when the NOs revoke after > the infraction"; it tells us only that "a revoke by the innocent side > subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score". It doesn't > say how, or due to what considerations, or by what method, or to what > specific effect on the results of the adjudication. These were the > original questions on the table. > Well Eric, I believe the discussion we were having was whether or not we correct after NOS revoke, not how we did this. When the CoP says it "affects", I interpret that as saying : "yes we correct", not "no we don't", and I even believe that you are capable of carrying out this correction in even the most difficult of cases. > I believe we reached (or assumed to start with) some consensus that > when the situation in which the revoke occurred would have occurred > similarly absent the original infraction, we adjust (for the NOS) on > the presumption that the revoke would have occurred absent the > infraction (and for the OS on the presumption that it wouldn't > have). But we have a problem when the revoke could not have occurred > absent the infraction, such as when the player who revoked on defense > would have been declarer, or dummy, or defending a different strain in > which the play would have gone completely differently. The CoP says > "will affect", not "might affect", so we know that the NOS must get a > worse score than we would have awarded had they not revoked. The > emerging consensus seemed to be that in that case the best we can do is > measure the self-inflicted damage in matchpoints, determine an adjusted > matchpoint result based solely on L12C (which says nothing about > self-inflicted damage), award the OS the matchpoints given by the > latter, and award the NOS that score minus the matchpoints given by the > former. Whether we like this method or not, it unarguably meets the > requirements of the CoP. > Your first point is moot : we also correct for lesser errors than revokes when we are judging the same strain, so saying that we correct in the same strain meets the criteria of the CoP is not a valid argument. Of course the CoP means that we also correct if the revoke is in a different strain. > So that method could answer the original question, which was about a > revoke, since the CoP makes it clear that damage caused by a revoke is > assumed to be ESI. It works equally well for self-inflicted damage not > the result of a revoke, if we believe what the CoP says. But I can't > rid myself of the suspicion that this is wrong; that the intention of > the authors of the CoP was that we substract from the L12C adjudication > not the matchpoints lost by the NOS's self-inflicted damage, but rather > only that portion of the self-inflicted damage that was ESI. > I agree with that and would apply it as such. > The thread expanded beyond (or wandered away from, depending on your > point of view) the original topic when some of us (myself included) > questioned the implicit assumption in the CoP that damage from a revoke > should necessarily be treated as ESI. David S. focused the debate by > pointing out that the EBU has chosen to consider damage from a revoke > as NESI, so the question is more than merely theoretical. Personally, > I prefer the EBU's view to the CoP's. But I am troubled (as Herman > seems to be, probably for different reasons) by the fact that the EBU's > view seems to violate the apparent consensus that the NOS should > sustain the self-inflicted damage from the revoke at least in the case > when they could have committed the same revoke in the same situation in > the adjudicated presumptive contract. So the "best" answer may lie > somewhere in between. > > Unfortunately, however, there is no room "in between" the CoP and EBU > views; a revoke, being a single indivisible occurrence, must generate > either ESI or NESI damage. My solution, which ignores the CoP > entirely, is to abandon the notion of evaluating "self-inflicted > damage" altogether, leaving the distinction between ESI and NESI damage > a non-issue, and revert to simply applying the words of L12C as > written, under which the NOS's revoke either does or does not affect > their adjusted score depending on whether it was not or was "likely" > that they would not have revoked absent the original infraction. > Well, Eric, you have given a masterful analysis, and I am fully in agreement with it. If you will now admit that your last statement is a personal opinion about how the laws ought to be interpreted, but not how they are in majority being done so, then we will be a bit further along the road. So, having ridden ourselves of Eric (sorry EriX-Mozilla-Status: 0009with still the same question: The EBU have (probably against the majority of the world) decided that revokes are NESI rather than ESI. Are they aware that this is a severely different interpretation from the RotW, even from the CoP, and do they wish to continue this practice ? Do other NCBO's wish to follow suit ? -- 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 Mar 15 03:46:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EGjxZ09858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:45:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2EGjqt09818 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:45:53 +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 f2EGjmr26747 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:45:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314113655.00b80ee0@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 Mar 2001 11:45:44 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style In-Reply-To: <3AAEA0A9.611F5026@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:35 PM 3/13/01, Michael wrote: >Board 8 AJT962 W N E S >W deals 82 P 2S 3C(1) 3H >None vul. Q963 X(2) P P P > 5 >KQ3 854 (1) Intended as Fishbein (takeout >93 AT6 double) >JT42 A7 (2) Intended as Rosenkrantz (showing >KT76 AQJ42 a high club honor) > 7 > KQJ754 > K85 > 983 > >Trick 1: Club to East's Ace >Trick 2: Heart to South's King >Trick 3: Club, ruffed in dummy >Trick 4: Diamond to East's Ace >Trick 5: Club Queen >Trick 6: Club Jack, ruffed with the Jack > >South eventually went down one. > >West mentioned as the hand concluded that she intended her double as >Rosenkrantz. South "called the director"[1]. > >South asserts that had he known that West still had the CK, he would >not have ruffed high. The director, through questions and prior >experience with this pair, knows that "forgetful Fishbein" is the actual >agreement. Thus South is not entitled to the information that West had >intended to show the CK. Nonetheless, armed with the knowledge that >East's 3C call was artificial, he might not have played for clubs to be >6-3. > >How do you rule? I am assuming that 3C Fishbein should have been alerted per local regs but wasn't. That does indeed mean that S was misinformed to the effect that E systemically showed a 3-level overcall in clubs. Absent the MI, it is likely that he would not have attempted to prevent the fourth-round overruff by ruffing up, so I would adjust. Looks like 3H=, although that's off the top of my head without having analyzed the play. >Note that ruffing high is bad play; it can never gain >even if clubs are 6-3. Does this affect your decision? Absolutely not. Ruffing high is a bad play even if the overruff was being threatened, but it is far from being wild, gambling, irrational, egregious, or a potential attempt at a double shot. 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 Mar 15 05:36:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EIZxl29271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 05:35:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f2EIZqt29231 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 05:35:53 +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 f2EIZmF97070 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:35:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314125316.00a9eb10@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 Mar 2001 13:35:44 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:12 PM 3/13/01, David wrote: >John (MadDog) Probst writes > > >In view of the prec 1D on Kxx Kxx xx AKxxx or Kxx Kxx AKxxx xx, I have > >now given permission for this to be used in the YC subject to the > >following: > > One of my pet hates, which seems to be happening an awful lot recently >on BLML, and even more on RGB, is quoting something irrelevant to >bolster an argument. One of the important considerations when deciding whether to permit a particular method at one's club is whether the pairs opposing the method will have the experience, and perhaps the agreements, to deal with the unexpected problems the method poses. Random minors may pose unexpected problems if the opponents are not prepared to deal with a minor-suit opening that may be made on as little as xx, or with a minor suit opening when the bidder has a better holding in the other minor. I'm not sure John is "bolstering" any particular "argument" here; he is explaining his reasons for choosing to allow the random minor opening at his club. He says that his players have had experience playing against, and have had the opportunity to make agreements about how they will deal with, the Precision 1D opening, which may be made on as little as xx, or with a better holding in the other minor, and therefore will not meet any new situations that are particular strange or problematic when they encounter the random minor. In that context, Precision 1D is very relevant. > You open 1D on both the above hands so that 1C may be strong, not >because misleading oppos is the main concern, so it is quite different >from opening a random minor when you do not need to. We must be careful to distinguish between "misleading the opponents" and "concealing information from the opponents". That we may be constrained from giving out false information does not imply that we have an obligation to reveal true information. From everything I've read here (I had not previously encountered the concept of random minors) the random minor sounds like a method designed to legitimately conceal information. If it is properly disclosed, I don't see how it would or could "mislead" anybody. The only reason I can see why people would object to the random minor (if they're willing to assume that it's being played ethically, with proper disclosure) is out of some sort of feeling that they're entitled to assume, when you open a minor, that you have at least three cards in it and/or don't have a better holding in the other minor, because they would be able to assume that against any other pair in the field (they would probably claim, though, that it gave you an unfair systemic advantage, not that they were being "misled"). That hits me awfully close to home, because I'm usually the only player at my club (unit game, actually, and a rather large one) playing four-card majors. My opponents cannot assume, when I open a major, that I have five or more cards in it, notwithstanding that they could validly so assume against any other pair in the club. That doesn't mean I open four-card majors "because misleading the opponents is [my] main concern", and wouldn't mean that even if my main concern *were* not letting the opponents know I had a fifth card in my suit whenever I opened a major. 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 Mar 15 07:21:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EKKvW21524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:20:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2EKKpt21520 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:20:51 +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 f2EKKkI71798 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:20:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314145510.00b8db50@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 Mar 2001 15:20:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <3AAF6BDE.B63465F@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312173731.00b8d1f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010313162756.00ab5830@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:02 AM 3/14/01, Herman wrote: >Well, in a bridge sense, they have. If I had been their >partners, I would have shouted far louder against opening >leader who failed to cash three winners, than to >misexplainer who momentarily forgot a part of our system. We're not talking from their partner's point of view; we're talking from their TD's point of view. I'm confident that when Herman has his TD hat on, he "shouts far louder" at a misexplainer who momentarily forgot a part of his system than at an opening leader who failed to cash three winners. That is precisely the sense in which I consider the former to be more deserving of losing score in adjudication than the latter. >So in the sense of "deserving what they got", EW in this >case were far more deserving for their bottom (which was a >push anyway). But why more "deserving [of] what they got" when the effect of their error is nullified by an opponent's prior infraction than when it is nullified by an opponent's subsequent bad play? If they are truly "deserving" of a bad score because they committed an egregious error, why not simply have automatic penalties for egregious errors of the difference between half a board and what the error actually cost them at the table? >Eric correctly points to a problem : if we want to separate >subsequent from consequent, then it is often impossible to >determine the "what would have happened without the >infraction but with the error". I agree that in this case >(and many others) it is impossible : you cannot determine >what would have happened in 5Di, as the same error is >impossible. > >But to jump from this to stating that it is wrong to ever >attempt that exercise is a leap that I would not dare to >make. I have not taken that leap. I agree that we should always attempt to reconstruct a presumptive result for the hypothetical in which the infraction didn't occur but the error did. But even though we always attempt to do so, there will be times when it proves impossible, because the premise of the hypothetical leads to a logical impossibility. What I disagree with is the notion that when we cannot construct the necessary hypothetical result we should go on to find some other way to penalize the NOS for the error. >In many cases, it IS possible to calculate the differences. >Even in this one, it is quite possible. My view is that if one can determine the difference in the presumptive table action, it should be assumed. And Herman is quite right that if we can't, we can always find some kind of formula with which to post-adjust the presumptive result even though it would not have affected the table action. The debate is over whether we should want to, or whether we should prefer to let a non-offender "get away unscathed" from an egregious error that would not have affected the table action absent the opponents' infraction. >Perhaps rather than throwing away the problem, we might be >trying to solve it ? Only if we think that egregious errors that aren't "punished" by bad scores are a problem. 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 Mar 15 08:01:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EL0r821562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:00:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from backup.san.rr.com (backup.san.rr.com [24.25.193.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2EL0lt21558 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:00:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by backup.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:00:53 -0800 Message-ID: <004701c0acc9$ce4f95a0$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <003701c0abe4$9db127a0$8f981e18@san.rr.com> <3AAF6E14.AE88546E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:55:11 -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 Herman wrote: Apologies for not getting the situation right, but this was not essential to the point I wanted to make. > Indeed the case was not like this. North misinterpreted > South's bid and as a consequence they were in 5S in stead of > 4Sp (no use of UI involved). In the meantime, and for only > one round, North had also misexpained the bidding to East. > By some convoluted way, it could have been possible for > East-West to end up in 5DiX-2. As I said, I did not go into > that but am assuming it as a possible basis for an AS. > > > E/W have three tricks off the top, but unaccountably, irrationally, fail > > to take them, so table result of -450 stands. Their damage was > > self-inflicted, not a consequence of the 5S bid, so no redress. > > > > Reconsidering, I believe the right adjustment for N/S is -50, "the most > > unfavorable result that was at all probable." The profit they received > > in the score by bidding 5S must be taken away, even if it came from > > subsequent rather than consequent damage. Considering further, I wonder if this contradicts my opinion that one does not change the play that actually occurred when assigning a result in the same denomination, unless the play was possibly influenced by the level of contract or by the infraction itself. It *is* a contradiction, but I'm modifying that opinion to say that annulling acts by the NOS can be disregarded in a score adjustment for the OS. So, -50. > > > > Maybe that can be the correct ruling, but I did not want to > split the scores in this team match. > > > I guess my brain is still a little scrambled from putting my bicycle > > helmet into a car's windshield two weeks ago. > > > > I presume you had put your head in that helmet prior to it > hitting the windshield :-) Indeed. And the fireman, policeman, and medic all agreed I would have been killed sans helmet, in view of the pretty star pattern I put in the windshield. The bike was turned into junk. The nearby emergency trauma center found nothing broken and no apparent nerve damage, so wife Alice was able to take me home with just a lot of bumps and bruises to get healed. That process is now 95% complete, and the Kansas City NABC will tell me whether I have any residual brain damage. This is great, because when I make my inevitable goofs I can say, "Well, you know I was in that accident a few weeks ago, and..." Moreover, I get to sit North-South all the time, using the same excuse. If my good luck stays with me a while, I may even win a few events! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 15 08:21:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2ELLB121584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:21:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from backup.san.rr.com (backup.san.rr.com [24.25.193.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2ELL6t21580 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:21:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.143]) by backup.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:21:12 -0800 Message-ID: <005a01c0accc$a508d820$8f981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314091928.00b80230@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:11:46 -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: "Eric Landau" > David Burn wrote: > > >If a player revokes, then he is > >penalised for the revoke, and should not expect to avoid being penalised > >for it simply because he would not have had the opportunity to do it if > >the infraction had not occurred. > > Of course he should, and he will. TFLB tells him in so many words to > expect "the score [for] the most favorable result that was likely had > the irregularity not occurred". Why would he not expect to "avoid" > being penalized for something that is definitionally impossible given > the stated premise? Should he really expect the score for "the most > favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred but > the subsequent egregious error had occurred" when that situation is an > unimaginable logical impossibility? Expect the unimaginable? That's > asking a bit much of mere mortals no matter how much we might try to > "educate" them. > Eric is quoting L12C2, a law that does not come into play at all for the NOS if the TD considers that the infraction caused no consequent damage to their side. L12C2 can then apply to the OS only if the TD considers that the infraction nevertheless caused an improvement in the OS's score. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA Off to Kansas City NABC -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 15 09:02:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EM1jp21624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:01:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2EM1ct21620 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:01:39 +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 f2EM1WT96719 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:01:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314153841.00aa2690@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 Mar 2001 17:01:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <3AAF71EF.CEB65B6E@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313092901.00b8b7d0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:28 AM 3/14/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > The CoP says that if all of the subsequent damage is either consequent > > or NESI, the NOs get redress for all of it. I expect we all agree that > > this is as it should be. > >Yep. > > > But it also says that if the subsequent > > damage is a mix of consequent, NESI and ESI damage, the NOs get redress > > only for the consequent damage; the NESI baby gets thrown out with the > > ESI bathwater. Is this what the authors of the CoP intended? If not, > > see the rant above. > >It is indeed an unexplored option to seeing a mix of 3 types >of damage, but I expect I would redress the NESI damage as >well as the consequent one, and try to distinguish between >ESI and NESI. That is certainly a reasonable approach, and may be the only reasonable approach. Indeed, it is so obviously sensible that I previously suggested that it may well be what the authors of the CoP intended, even though it's not what they wrote. >We might be able to construct cases. Normal result either >+420 or +450, finesse badly taken, so only +420, and then a >revoke to boot. >Possible correction to 10 tricks, but not to eleven. > > > >I thought the CoP was supposed to be an "official" interpretation of > > >the Laws; is it not? If so, it pretty clearly spells out what is > > >considered damage, and even more clearly spells out what we do when > > >the NO's revoke after the infraction; so I'm not clear on why there > > >should be any debate. Or are we debating or whether the CoP should be > > >changed? > > > > But the CoP doesn't "spell[] out what we do when the NOs revoke after > > the infraction"; it tells us only that "a revoke by the innocent side > > subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score". It doesn't > > say how, or due to what considerations, or by what method, or to what > > specific effect on the results of the adjudication. These were the > > original questions on the table. > >Well Eric, I believe the discussion we were having was >whether or not we correct after NOS revoke, not how we did >this. When the CoP says it "affects", I interpret that as >saying : "yes we correct", not "no we don't", and I even >believe that you are capable of carrying out this correction >in even the most difficult of cases. The discussion was about the potential effect of a subsequent revoke on an adjudicated score. This can be broken down into a series of questions: (1) Should it ever affect the score? (me: yes; Herman: yes.) (2) If so, under what circumstances? (me: when it would be likely to have occurred in the presumptive contract on which the adjusted score is based; Herman: always.) (3) How do we determine the effect? (me: by adjusting the presumptive table action to account for the likely occurrence of the revoke; Herman: same when possible, otherwise via a computed post-adjustment to the presumptive result calculated in matchpoints.) Herman's answer to (3) fully justifies his assertion that we are capable of computing an adjustment in even the toughest cases, but that matters only if we accept his answer to (2) (i.e. want to). The thread actually started out by focusing on the "how", but got refocused on "whether" when David S. raised the visibility of that issue rather dramatically by pointing out that the EBU's and the WBF's current practices are opposed on the question. > > I believe we reached (or assumed to start with) some consensus that > > when the situation in which the revoke occurred would have occurred > > similarly absent the original infraction, we adjust (for the NOS) on > > the presumption that the revoke would have occurred absent the > > infraction (and for the OS on the presumption that it wouldn't > > have). But we have a problem when the revoke could not have occurred > > absent the infraction, such as when the player who revoked on defense > > would have been declarer, or dummy, or defending a different strain in > > which the play would have gone completely differently. The CoP says > > "will affect", not "might affect", so we know that the NOS must get a > > worse score than we would have awarded had they not revoked. The > > emerging consensus seemed to be that in that case the best we can do is > > measure the self-inflicted damage in matchpoints, determine an adjusted > > matchpoint result based solely on L12C (which says nothing about > > self-inflicted damage), award the OS the matchpoints given by the > > latter, and award the NOS that score minus the matchpoints given by the > > former. Whether we like this method or not, it unarguably meets the > > requirements of the CoP. > >Your first point is moot : we also correct for lesser errors >than revokes when we are judging the same strain, so saying >that we correct in the same strain meets the criteria of the >CoP is not a valid argument. Of course the CoP means that >we also correct if the revoke is in a different strain. I concede to Herman's accusation that my preferred method for dealing with subsequent revokes does not comform to the CoP, so if the ACBL ever enacts the CoP, I shall stop trying to convince people to interpret the rules my way and start trying to convince them to change the rules so as to allow them to interpret them my way! But I am not suggesting that we go in the opposite direction either; I have never suggested that an opponent's infraction should automatically nullify the effect of a subsequent revoke by the NOS. My method would conform if the CoP were modified to read "might affect" instead of "will affect". > > So that method could answer the original question, which was about a > > revoke, since the CoP makes it clear that damage caused by a revoke is > > assumed to be ESI. It works equally well for self-inflicted damage not > > the result of a revoke, if we believe what the CoP says. But I can't > > rid myself of the suspicion that this is wrong; that the intention of > > the authors of the CoP was that we substract from the L12C adjudication > > not the matchpoints lost by the NOS's self-inflicted damage, but rather > > only that portion of the self-inflicted damage that was ESI. > >I agree with that and would apply it as such. > > > The thread expanded beyond (or wandered away from, depending on your > > point of view) the original topic when some of us (myself included) > > questioned the implicit assumption in the CoP that damage from a revoke > > should necessarily be treated as ESI. David S. focused the debate by > > pointing out that the EBU has chosen to consider damage from a revoke > > as NESI, so the question is more than merely theoretical. Personally, > > I prefer the EBU's view to the CoP's. But I am troubled (as Herman > > seems to be, probably for different reasons) by the fact that the EBU's > > view seems to violate the apparent consensus that the NOS should > > sustain the self-inflicted damage from the revoke at least in the case > > when they could have committed the same revoke in the same situation in > > the adjudicated presumptive contract. So the "best" answer may lie > > somewhere in between. > > > > Unfortunately, however, there is no room "in between" the CoP and EBU > > views; a revoke, being a single indivisible occurrence, must generate > > either ESI or NESI damage. My solution, which ignores the CoP > > entirely, is to abandon the notion of evaluating "self-inflicted > > damage" altogether, leaving the distinction between ESI and NESI damage > > a non-issue, and revert to simply applying the words of L12C as > > written, under which the NOS's revoke either does or does not affect > > their adjusted score depending on whether it was not or was "likely" > > that they would not have revoked absent the original infraction. > >Well, Eric, you have given a masterful analysis, and I am >fully in agreement with it. > >If you will now admit that your last statement is a personal >opinion about how the laws ought to be interpreted, I admit this. >but not >how they are in majority being done so, I don't know about this; perhaps this thread will provide the answer. So far, it sounds to me like there is no one interpretation, mine or anyone else's, that is being applied by anything like a majority. >then we will be a >bit further along the road. > >So, having ridden ourselves of Eric (sorry Eric), That is wishful thinking on Herman's part. I'm not so easy to get rid of. ("You won't have Eric to kick around any more"???) >we are now >faced with still the same question: > >The EBU have (probably against the majority of the world) >decided that revokes are NESI rather than ESI. > >Are they aware that this is a severely different >interpretation from the RotW, even from the CoP, I'm sure they are. If they aren't, don't blame David S.! >and do they >wish to continue this practice ? I hope so. I like my own interpretation better than theirs, but much prefer theirs to the WBF's and, even more so, the ACBL's. >Do other NCBO's wish to follow suit ? I can only hope mine will. To recap this particular aspect of the discussion: The question: If a non-offender revokes subsequent to an opponent's infraction, do we wish to "deny redress" that would nullify the self-inflicted damage resulting from the revoke? The answers given so far: Herman/WBF: Yes. Rationale: Revokes have consequences, and there's no reason why someone who revokes should escape those consequences just because an opponent committed an unrelated infraction. David/EBU: No. Rationale: Non-offenders get the benefit of the doubt and more; the laws are carefully written to make sure that they get at least as good a score as they would have had absent the infraction, which perforce means that they frequently do much better than that, and that's just fine. Taking away rights is, from the players' point of view, no matter how much we deny it, punishment for some possible wrongdoing, and we only want to punish the NOs if they may be looking for a double shot. A revoke can never be a means to a double shot, so there's no particular reason to take away any otherwise available rights. Eric/all alone: Yes if it is likely that the revoke would have been committed absent the original infraction, otherwise no. Rationale: The method for determining the NO's score set forth in L12B2, "the score is... the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred", is simple, elegant, easy for TDs and ACs to apply, easy for players to understand, and generally just fine. "Interpretations" that add exceptions, codicils, post-adjustment adjustments or other complications to the near-perfect formula already in TFLB will only create unnecessary confusion and problems. Marv/ACBL: Yes, yes, yes! With double or triple punitive damages if possible! Make 'em not only keep the ESI damage from the revoke, but also the consequent damage from the infraction and the NESI damage from any other bridge error they may have made on the hand as well. Rationale: They deserve it, the revoking b*st*rds! 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 Mar 15 09:53:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EMrFB00190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:53:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f2EMr9t00151 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:53:09 +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 f2EMr4I83085 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:53:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314171301.00b892c0@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 Mar 2001 17:53:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke In-Reply-To: <3AAF7775.F3471154@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313114555.00b8cc80@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:51 AM 3/14/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > A side is "damaged" by an opponent's infraction(s) if their result at > > the table is less than their "equity position", which is the most > > favorable result that was likely had there been no > > infraction. Therefore "damage" can only be "established" when a table > > result has been achieved and such a comparison can be made. E-W's (the > > NOS's) equity position -- their most favorable likely result had their > > been no infraction -- was taking one trick. Their table result was for > > two tricks, so they did better than their equity position. L64C says > > that they get either the table result or the score for their equity > > position, whichever is better; it is satisfied by the two-trick penalty > > for the multiple revokes. The equity position is based on the > > presumption that there is no infraction, so does not change when an > > infraction is committed; there is no "new" artificial equity position > > established to which the table outcome achieved after another, > > subsequent infraction is compared assess damage. > >Sorry Eric, but that won't do. >Their "equity" position was 1 trick before the first revoke, >but it may well have been something else at any of the 32 >cards played before that. >The equity position changes all the time, and an infraction >is simply one way of changing it. >Suppose someone revokes on the first trick. It is >discovered on the third one. You tell the players that such >and such tricks are already being transferred. Now he >revokes again in the ninth trick. What is the equity >position before this revoke ? If it includes all eight >previous tricks, it should include all previous penalties as >well. That is exactly the debate I thought David S. might be trying to start: is "equity" fixed for a given hand, or does it change for the NOS when their opponents commit an infraction? We know that if the NOS can "beat" equity by taking advantage of the OS's infraction to get a better score they are perfectly entitled to try to do so and to keep their result if they succeed. To say that equity changes when an infraction is committed is to say that the NOS becomes "vested" in the adjustment for that infraction. That assumption provides the rationale for comparing the outcome of the second infraction to the score the NOs were in a position to get after the first infraction and prior to the second. But the vesting occurs at the first infraction, so its consequences are vested whether or not there is an additional infraction. Now if the opponents are entitled to a score at least as good as the equity established after the infraction, they are also entitled to attempt to do better than equity at the table. That leads to the conclusion that, far from being something we should discourage, the double shot is a legitimate weapon that belongs in every expert's arsenal. >So the equity position after the first revoke is : > > >> 8 > >> J5 Diamonds are trumps. Declarer leads the > >> 6 HA from dummy - and discards the S6. > >> -- Next he cashes the HJ, discarding the C4. > >>Q53 J He then plays a heart to the nine, and > >>-- -- cashes the H3 discarding the S8. Thus he > >>-- -- takes all five tricks, but has revoked > >>8 Q52 twice in hearts. > >> -- > >> 93 How do you rule? > >> -- > >> 43 > >Heart jack has just been played from the table, and now >declarer notices his revoke. He stands to lose 1 spade >trick and 1 penalty trick, since he can avoid winning a >trick with the heart nine by unblocking it. > >Equity position : 2 tricks to defence. > >By applying the eureka below, we arrive at the same position >: > > > But wait! Aha! Eureka! Perhaps Todd's analysis has uncovered the > > catch for us after all. What about L72B1? "Whenever... an offender > > could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity > > would be likely to damage the non-offending side... [the TD] shall... > > award[] an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side > > gained an advantage through the irregularity." S certainly "could have > > known" that, having revoked on the HA to lose two tricks relative to > > the NOS's equity position, he could then "gain back" one trick by > > subsequently revoking on the HJ. So should we rule only two tricks > to N-S? > >No we should not. > >At the moment before the jack is played, the equity position >is oly 1 trick to defenders (declarer correcting his >non-esatblished revoke). > >At the moment the jack is played, this turns into 2 tricks >(unblocking the nine). > >And then the second revoke comes, which now gains a trick >and costs 2. > >Final solution : 2 tricks to defence. Quite right. I hope everybody understands that when I write (unless I specifically state otherwise), "Change the result to X," what I really mean is "Change the result to what's right. At first glance that looks to me like it might be X, but I'm leaving the complete analysis of the hand to others." When I post to BLML, I am thinking and writing about matters of law, not about analyzing hands. >But if you reverse the 5 and 3 of hearts, there is no legal >way for declarer to escape for 3 tricks, and that is what he >should get. > >In a way, this case is simpler, so the original is more >interesting. More interesting, perhaps, but no more relevant to the legal issue. 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 Mar 15 10:09:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2EN97i01951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:09:07 +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 f2EN91t01947 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:09:02 +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 SAA11930 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:08:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA22666 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:08:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:08:58 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103142308.SAA22666@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Eric/all alone: Yes if it is likely that the revoke would have been > committed absent the original infraction, otherwise no. Great summary! Thanks. I think I may go along with Eric, although I want to see what other people have to say. His approach certainly has an attractive simplicity, and I'm not sure it isn't the ACBL approach. My main comment is that I think it makes a difference whether L12C3 is enabled or not. If it is, you can do any kind of post-adjustment you want for any reason you want. The CoP assumes 12C3 is available. If 12C3 is not available, options may be limited to adjusted scores (perhaps split) and the table result. It isn't obvious you can subtract matchpoints for the NOS self-inflicted damage, although you can certainly adjust on the basis that they would have revoked in the contract on which the adjusted score is based. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 15 17:02:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2F61qe19956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:01:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2F61kt19922 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:01:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA24609 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:05:33 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:54:31 +0000 (EST) Subject: [BLML] "There are two teams on the field ..." To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:58:23 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/03/2001 04:59:14 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "... and only one is playing cricket." In the thread *subsequent foul hasn't happened*, Herman De Wael wrote: [big snip] >The Laws of cricket specifically state this. They even >explicitly allow for a double shot, by going for a wild and >gambling (even irrational) swing and trying for a six. [snip] >It must be clear that examples from other sports will not >help us. I both agree and disagree. In technical terms, the Laws of Cricket and the Laws of Bridge are not relevant to each other. However, cricket- and bridge-lovers have a common interest in the *sportsmanship* issue. Until the 1930s, the phrase *It's not cricket* was synonymous with inactive ethics. Then came the notorious Bodyline series. As a result, the Laws of Cricket were changed, in order to more closely align cricket illegality with *it's not cricket*. The Bridge Laws (and their interpretation/application) were also changed - in the 1960s and 1970s - in order to more closely align The Rules with The Ethics. But still more needs to be done. L12B in conjunction with L81C8 places ethical/sportsmanlike players at a competitive disadvantage versus sharks. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 15 20:18:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2F9Hrb01750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:17:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2F9Hkt01746 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:17:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.157.69] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14dTt7-0000rw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:17:41 +0000 Message-ID: <002f01c0ad30$af9b4d40$459d7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314091928.00b80230@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:16:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > At 08:04 AM 3/13/01, David wrote: > > >It's not a question of penalising non-offenders. > > So David B. says. But what really matters is how the non-offenders see > it. No, it doesn't. It has already been established many times on this list that whether or not players agree with, or indeed see an atom of sense in, the Laws and the way they are applied is neither here nor there. As long as the TDs understand the Laws, then God is in His Heaven and all is right with the world. > Loss of legal rights is a "penalty" by any definition of the > word. When we deny redress to the NOs, they can only assume that we do > so because they did something illegal to cause them to lose something > they would have had they not done whatever they did. But we are not denying redress to the NOs (at least, I am not - though this discussion has by now become rather confused). The NOs get redress for the damage done to them by their opponents; they suffer the consequences of the damage done to them by themselves. As I have said, there are those who think that if, as a result of an enemy infraction, you (for example) become a defender when you would otherwise have been (for example) dummy, this allows you to defend as badly as you like, revoking on every other trick into the bargain, without - well, let us not use the word "penalty", let us say "having to suffer the consequences". This point of view is sincerely held, and long experience has shown me that it is impossible to convince its holders that other points of view are equally valid. > It's not at all > surprising that players won't understand what we mean when we tell them > "you didn't do anything wrong, so this isn't a penalty, but > nevertheless we're taking away the score you would have gotten had you > not done it" -- I'd worry about the mental state of anyone who thought > he did understand it. My mental state may very well be cause for concern, but I understand the position perfectly. We do not tell players "you didn't do anything wrong, so...". We tell them: "your opponents did something wrong, so we are going to adjust their score thus; you also did something wrong (that is, you revoked), so we are going to adjust your score thus." If they say: "Yes, but I couldn't have revoked if my opponents hadn't cheated first, so I ought not to suffer any consequences of my revoke", I will buy them a cup of tea and put them in touch with the Eric Landau Helpline for Victims of the Code of Practice. > But why should we be concerned? We don't question "allowing" people to > play cost-free ridiculous bridge when their opponents haven't committed > an infraction; they do it all the time, and we all agree that it's a > normal part of the game. Why should we suddenly start reacting to > cost-free ridiculous bridge just because the opponents *did* commit an > infraction? We don't. For the most part, if people play ridiculous bridge, they get bad results. Occasionally, a player may do something ridiculous which does not cost, or which actually gains compared to doing something sensible. Of course that is "part of the game". But we should not create situations in which, in effect, we say: "For the duration of this board, nothing ridiculous done by players X and Y can ever cost; if it gains, they keep the benefit, if it loses, they do not suffer". I say again: the fact that your opponents have committed an infraction confers no kind of immunity upon your side. > Of course he should, and he will. TFLB tells him in so many words to > expect "the score [for] the most favorable result that was likely had > the irregularity not occurred". Law 12C2 says this. Law 12C3 and the WBF CoP say that a score assigned (under L12C2) may be varied. I see no reason why players should be unable to accept that this "variation" will take into account their own ridiculous performance. > Why would he not expect to "avoid" > being penalized for something that is definitionally impossible given > the stated premise? Should he really expect the score for "the most > favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred but > the subsequent egregious error had occurred" when that situation is an > unimaginable logical impossibility? Expect the unimaginable? That's > asking a bit much of mere mortals no matter how much we might try to > "educate" them. I mentioned before that holders of the view that an enemy infraction does confer an immunity upon one's own side are not capable of understanding a contrary view; I used the phrase "banging on the table and shouting". The above paragraph is an example of this. The view that Eric and others take is that something which could not have happened had X not occurred must have been caused by, and is consequent upon, X. To these people I commend the works of David Hume; they will not understand him, but at least they may stop shouting for a while. A more profitable way of looking at the situation may be the following: L12C2 defines a "default" adjustment for both the offending and the non-offending sides. In jurisdictions where L12C3 does not apply, that default will be the adjustment (and the Eric Landau Helpline will not be required). However, in jurisdictions where L12C3 does apply, the default adjustment may be varied to take into account an egregiously poor performance by the non-offending side, provided that there is no causal link between the infraction and the poor performance. The final clause will be incomprehensible to those I have mentioned in the preceding paragraph; others, however, may find it helpful. 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 Mar 15 21:05:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FA4aE01798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:04:36 +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 (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2FA4Ut01794 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:04:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-82-203.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.82.203]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09109; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:03:56 GMT Message-ID: <000601c0ad37$67ed8600$cb52063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <200103122334.PAA05879@mailhub.irvine.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314073327.00a9f800@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:14:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott " Such laboured nothings in so strange a style Amaze th' unlearn'd, and make the learned smile," ~ Alexander Pope. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again > At 02:54 AM 3/13/01, Grattan wrote: > > > Consequent damage is damage resulting from the > >infraction/irregularity for which the NOS is entitled to > >indemnity. Subsequent damage is damage occurring > >after the irregularity but not resulting from the > >violation, the cause of it being attributed to the > >irrational, wild or gambling action of the NOS. > > Grattan, please. I'm reduced to begging. "Subsequent > damage is damage occurring after the irregularity but > not resulting from the violation..." only to the folks on > BLML and in other rarefied circles particularly > knowledgeable about bridge laws. This is too close to, > but very different from, what "subsequent" means to > an ordinary English speaker. > +=+ Yes. I hear you. I think the shorthand may have been introduced unintentionally by the current WBFLC which used it in its discussions in Lille. (The reference to "whether consequent or subsequent" demonstrates that the two terms were juxtaposed.) It may be that we could have recognised this to advantage, since I believe what we were saying was that when a score is adjusted following an irregularity the offending side shall be deprived of advantage from any subsequent damage whilst the NOS is entitled to indemnity only for advantage gained in the score by an opponent which results from his irregularity - always allowing that an advantage to an offender that is not related to the irregularity and is gained solely by good play is not 'damage'. Had I thought of it at the time I could have drafted the minute in this style to see if the WBFLC would accept the change of expression. ~ 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 Mar 15 21:52:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FApZe06733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:51:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2FApTt06729 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:51:29 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA02252; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:51:22 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 15 10:19:51 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 <01K180BEDZ2Y004F31@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:15:11 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:10:04 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:36:59 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again To: "'Marvin L. French'" , Bridge Laws Cc: adam@irvine.com Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7E0@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 didn't intend to disagree with what you say here. Of course the OS > score is adjusted even when the NOS has redress annulled. I > think that's > what the LC minutes say. My disagreement is with the partial redress > that the CoP calls for in certain situations, when applying L12C2. I > didn't see that in the LC minutes, which seems to say full > redress or no > redress, nothing halfway, for the NOS. It says full redress, but 'full' as far as the damage was caused by the infraction. Having to pay 11 euro's (let us start using those, a euro being almost as much as a dollar) and giving 50 I should get back 39. But I got back 29 and checking this once more I succeed in losing another 10. I am entitled to full redress. You are saying that without the mistake I never would have lost another 10, which might be true. The shop will tell you that you might be right and apologize, but their full redress is restricted to 10 euro's. Reading this again I start to like this example. 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 Mar 15 22:47:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FBkfq19121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 22:46:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2FBkYt19117 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 22:46:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-240.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.240]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2FBk4i10957 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:46:19 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AB0A2BC.D0E6BA6C@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:08:44 +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] Subsequent damage - again References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312173731.00b8d1f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010313162756.00ab5830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314145510.00b8db50@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 08:02 AM 3/14/01, Herman wrote: > > >Well, in a bridge sense, they have. If I had been their > >partners, I would have shouted far louder against opening > >leader who failed to cash three winners, than to > >misexplainer who momentarily forgot a part of our system. > > We're not talking from their partner's point of view; we're talking > from their TD's point of view. I'm confident that when Herman has his > TD hat on, he "shouts far louder" at a misexplainer who momentarily > forgot a part of his system than at an opening leader who failed to > cash three winners. That is precisely the sense in which I consider > the former to be more deserving of losing score in adjudication than > the latter. > Of course, but you are the one who said that they "deserve" redress. I don't see why they do, when they are to blame for their bad score. > >So in the sense of "deserving what they got", EW in this > >case were far more deserving for their bottom (which was a > >push anyway). > > But why more "deserving [of] what they got" when the effect of their > error is nullified by an opponent's prior infraction than when it is > nullified by an opponent's subsequent bad play? If they are truly > "deserving" of a bad score because they committed an egregious error, > why not simply have automatic penalties for egregious errors of the > difference between half a board and what the error actually cost them > at the table? > Now you are switching to OS again. Perhaps indeed OS "deserve" to get +300. We're not talking about that. Why should NOS "deserve" a score that they could have bettered by simply playing normal bridge ? > >Eric correctly points to a problem : if we want to separate > >subsequent from consequent, then it is often impossible to > >determine the "what would have happened without the > >infraction but with the error". I agree that in this case > >(and many others) it is impossible : you cannot determine > >what would have happened in 5Di, as the same error is > >impossible. > > > >But to jump from this to stating that it is wrong to ever > >attempt that exercise is a leap that I would not dare to > >make. > > I have not taken that leap. OK, sorry, but it seemed to me that you were argueing against my points by saying that it was impossible in some cases. If that is not your argumentation, then I did not understand what was, and we've probably lost the thread somewhere. > I agree that we should always attempt to > reconstruct a presumptive result for the hypothetical in which the > infraction didn't occur but the error did. But even though we always > attempt to do so, there will be times when it proves impossible, > because the premise of the hypothetical leads to a logical > impossibility. I have demonstrated that we do not need to do this. We can easily subtract from the normal AS the difference between the normal result with the infraction and the result with the infraction and the error. > What I disagree with is the notion that when we cannot > construct the necessary hypothetical result we should go on to find > some other way to penalize the NOS for the error. > We are not penalizing NOS, we are not letting them get away with it. > >In many cases, it IS possible to calculate the differences. > >Even in this one, it is quite possible. > > My view is that if one can determine the difference in the presumptive > table action, it should be assumed. And Herman is quite right that if > we can't, we can always find some kind of formula with which to > post-adjust the presumptive result even though it would not have > affected the table action. The debate is over whether we should want > to, or whether we should prefer to let a non-offender "get away > unscathed" from an egregious error that would not have affected the > table action absent the opponents' infraction. > The problem with the argument that the egregious error woud not have happened absent the infraction is that it never is. We never take egregious errors into account when deciding AS, not even for OS! But they do happen - and by throwing some of them away, we are giving an added advantage that (IMHO) is not deserved. > >Perhaps rather than throwing away the problem, we might be > >trying to solve it ? > > Only if we think that egregious errors that aren't "punished" by bad > scores are a problem. > I believe it is not a problem, not in any direction. The current practice is to take these errors into account, and this poses no problem. Maybe if we change it, we shall see more problems from OS who will say "he revoked and got away with it". They may not be mad about not receiving the benefit, but they sure will be mad at opponents escaping scot-free. So, yes, I think that your point of view would create a problem. -- 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 Mar 15 23:10:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FCA9p19141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:10:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2FCA3t19137 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:10:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA27055; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:06:08 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA00915; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:09:39 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010315131225.007da1f0@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 Mar 2001 13:12:25 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314113655.00b80ee0@127.0.0.1> References: <3AAEA0A9.611F5026@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:45 14/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >I am assuming that 3C Fishbein should have been alerted per local regs >but wasn't. That does indeed mean that S was misinformed to the effect >that E systemically showed a 3-level overcall in clubs. Absent the MI, >it is likely that he would not have attempted to prevent the >fourth-round overruff by ruffing up, so I would adjust. Looks like >3H=, although that's off the top of my head without having analyzed the >play. > >>Note that ruffing high is bad play; it can never gain >>even if clubs are 6-3. Does this affect your decision? > >Absolutely not. Ruffing high is a bad play even if the overruff was >being threatened, but it is far from being wild, gambling, irrational, >egregious, or a potential attempt at a double shot. AG : it is irrational at a high enough level of play. It is a no-win case. If clubs are indeed 6-3, the trump promotion is automatic, high ruff or not. If they are not, of course, you should not ruff high. Id South's standard of play is high enough to be 'compelled' to see this, he ceased to play bridge. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 16 00:50:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FDjAv19322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:45:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2FDj5t19318 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:45:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.55]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GA8RQZ00.09B for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:49:47 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-239.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.239]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Disorderly-MailRouter V2.9c 7/3945289); 15 Mar 2001 23:44:56 Message-ID: <001d01c0ad56$16d626e0$efd336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:44:42 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote (referring to declarer's high ruff): >AG : It is a no-win case. If clubs are indeed 6-3, the trump promotion is automatic, high ruff or not. Alain has oversimplified the analysis to reach a faulty "no-win" conclusion. If West started with HA9x and ducked the first round of hearts, then ruffing low is immediately fatal whereas ruffing high will survive if West is a poor enough player to overruff with the ace. Alain seems to have been influenced by seeing all four hands when making his erroneous "is automatic" comment. Eric Landau's summary of this case seemed exactly right to me. 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 Mar 16 00:54:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FDnpj19342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:49:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2FDnjt19338 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:49:46 +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 f2FDnar98840 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:49:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315083935.00a9c730@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, 15 Mar 2001 08:49:33 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <005a01c0accc$a508d820$8f981e18@san.rr.com> References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314091928.00b80230@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 04:11 PM 3/14/01, Marvin wrote: >Eric is quoting L12C2, a law that does not come into play at all for the >NOS if the TD considers that the infraction caused no consequent damage >to their side. L12C2 can then apply to the OS only if the TD considers >that the infraction nevertheless caused an improvement in the OS's >score. This clearly cannot be right, as we can easily construct situations where 100% of the subseqent damage is NESI. That would mean that redress can be denied to an NOS even when there is no suggestion that they did anything "egregious" or "wild, gambling or irrational" or whatever the standard is for ESI damage. Regrettably, the ACBL does appear to be moving towards this position, slowly eroding the distinction between ESI and NESI. We are starting to see rulings denying redress to the NOS on no more justification than "the infraction put them in a position to get a top and they blew it, so equity was [momentarily] satisfied and their subsequent bottom was their own fault", with no mention whatsoever of any criterion for ESI damage. 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 Mar 16 01:55:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FEruw19427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:53:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2FErot19423 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:53:51 +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 f2FErja26393 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:53:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315091334.00a9d1f0@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, 15 Mar 2001 09:53:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <002f01c0ad30$af9b4d40$459d7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314091928.00b80230@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 04:16 AM 3/15/01, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > Of course he should, and he will. TFLB tells him in so many words to > > expect "the score [for] the most favorable result that was likely had > > the irregularity not occurred". > >Law 12C2 says this. Law 12C3 and the WBF CoP say that a score assigned >(under L12C2) may be varied. I see no reason why players should be >unable to accept that this "variation" will take into account their own >ridiculous performance. > > > Why would he not expect to "avoid" > > being penalized for something that is definitionally impossible given > > the stated premise? Should he really expect the score for "the most > > favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred but > > the subsequent egregious error had occurred" when that situation is an > > unimaginable logical impossibility? Expect the unimaginable? That's > > asking a bit much of mere mortals no matter how much we might try to > > "educate" them. > >I mentioned before that holders of the view that an enemy infraction >does confer an immunity upon one's own side are not capable of >understanding a contrary view; I used the phrase "banging on the table >and shouting". The above paragraph is an example of this. The view that >Eric and others take is that something which could not have happened had >X not occurred must have been caused by, and is consequent upon, X. To >these people I commend the works of David Hume; they will not understand >him, but at least they may stop shouting for a while. > >A more profitable way of looking at the situation may be the following: >L12C2 defines a "default" adjustment for both the offending and the >non-offending sides. In jurisdictions where L12C3 does not apply, that >default will be the adjustment (and the Eric Landau Helpline will not be >required). However, in jurisdictions where L12C3 does apply, the default >adjustment may be varied to take into account an egregiously poor >performance by the non-offending side, provided that there is no causal >link between the infraction and the poor performance. The final clause >will be incomprehensible to those I have mentioned in the preceding >paragraph; others, however, may find it helpful. I found David S.'s summary of his position (mostly snipped) most enlightening. I admit that I had been viewing this issue from an "ACBLish" point of view, and therefore failed to recognize what was probably obvious to David and everyone else on the other side of the pond: The statement in the CoP is not a guideline for applying L12C; it is a guideline for applying L12C3 in particular. L12C3 allows ACs to do essentially anything the wish in order to achieve equity. The statement in the CoP is a guideline provided by the WBF to ACs as to how to interpret "equity". This is logical, consonent with the laws, and entirely reasonable. The thread seems to have bifurcated into two discussions, one on procedures the AC might use to achieve equity as defined by the CoP, the other on whether the definition of equity in the CoP is a good and/or useful one. My own personal interest, of course, has to do with how the Kaplan doctrine applies in the ACBL. David's last paragraph says that when we apply the Kaplan doctrine, we are "vary[ing] an assigned adjusted score [which we obtain by applying L12C2] in order to do equity". In other words, the legal basis for it is found in L12C3. Therefore the use of the Kaplan doctrine is illegal in the ACBL, which has elected to nullify L12C3 in their jurisdiction; ACs in the ACBL are bound by law to adjudicate redress for (any kind of) damage from an opponent's infraction (unless L12C1 applies) in strict accordance with L12C2. Is this the position of the WBF? 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 Mar 16 02:47:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FFkRr19463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:46:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2FFkLt19459 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:46:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14dZx4-000HzQ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:46:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:20:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <200103141122.LAA21731@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200103141122.LAA21731@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes > >> >In view of the prec 1D on Kxx Kxx xx AKxxx or Kxx Kxx AKxxx xx, I have >> >now given permission for this to be used in the YC subject to the >> >following: >> >[rant snipped] >> >> You open 1D on both the above hands so that 1C may be strong, not >> because misleading oppos is the main concern, so it is quite different >> from opening a random minor when you do not need to. >> > >I think it is relevant. > >It is no harder to defend against a 1D opening [unbalanced with >D or balanced including Kxx Kxx xx AKxxx or Kxx Kxx AKxxx xx] >when unbalanced hands with clubs open 1C and 2C is strong, >than it is to defend against the same 1D opening >when unbalanced hands with clubs open 2C and 1C is strong. So? Is it harder to defend against a random minor opening than an opening that bids the longer minor? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 16 02:48:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FFkox19469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:46:50 +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-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2FFkht19465 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:46:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14dZxK-000Hzm-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:46:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:18:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >Ahem. In "random minor" you open 1D when you have diamonds, 1 club >when you have clubs and either when you're balanced. there is nothing >there which is disruptive, or designed to damage the opponents. Perhaps. Or we could argue that the *only* point of playing it is to mislead oppos as to your minor-suit length. >It is your opinion, after Vernes, that showing the relative length of >minor in balanced hands is bad bridge. My opinion is not completely formed, but I am not sure how Vernes comes into it. He may have proved that pairs do not need to know minor length *usually* in balanced hands, but he surely has not proved that not knowing has any advantage to constructive bidding? >the prec example is used to show that the relative length of the minors >is *not* relevant, and *not* destructive. Of course it is relevant. You always will get the occasional hand where Precision players miss 6C or 6D because of the system. Their advantage is the ability to play a strong club. Any Precision pairs that expect to bid slams on 4-4 minor fits as efficiently as a pair playing four-card minors has being chewing the wrong type of grass. In practice it is the normal tradeoff in system: Precision pairs are not silly enough to think their lack of definition does not matter, just that the advantages of their system outweigh the disadvantages. So, tell me the advantages of playing a random minor when the system does not need 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 Fri Mar 16 03:08:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FG63h19505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 03:06:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2FG5tt19501 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 03:05:56 +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 f2FG5oF65902 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:05:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315100430.00abdd40@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, 15 Mar 2001 11:05:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <3AB0A2BC.D0E6BA6C@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010312173731.00b8d1f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010313162756.00ab5830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314145510.00b8db50@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:08 AM 3/15/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > At 08:02 AM 3/14/01, Herman wrote: > > > > >Well, in a bridge sense, they have. If I had been their > > >partners, I would have shouted far louder against opening > > >leader who failed to cash three winners, than to > > >misexplainer who momentarily forgot a part of our system. > > > > We're not talking from their partner's point of view; we're talking > > from their TD's point of view. I'm confident that when Herman has his > > TD hat on, he "shouts far louder" at a misexplainer who momentarily > > forgot a part of his system than at an opening leader who failed to > > cash three winners. That is precisely the sense in which I consider > > the former to be more deserving of losing score in adjudication than > > the latter. > >Of course, but you are the one who said that they "deserve" >redress. I don't see why they do, when they are to blame >for their bad score. That wasn't me; it was L12C2, which says that they "deserve" "the most favorable result that was likely had the infraction not occurred". > > >So in the sense of "deserving what they got", EW in this > > >case were far more deserving for their bottom (which was a > > >push anyway). > > > > But why more "deserving [of] what they got" when the effect of their > > error is nullified by an opponent's prior infraction than when it is > > nullified by an opponent's subsequent bad play? If they are truly > > "deserving" of a bad score because they committed an egregious error, > > why not simply have automatic penalties for egregious errors of the > > difference between half a board and what the error actually cost them > > at the table? > >Now you are switching to OS again. Perhaps indeed OS >"deserve" to get +300. We're not talking about that. >Why should NOS "deserve" a score that they could have >bettered by simply playing normal bridge ? I am talking about the side that committed the "egregious" error. Herman may have misunderstood, but if so his misunderstanding is becoming doctrine in the ACBL. When one side infracts to reach a contract in which they "should" (if the opponents "play bridge") get a bad score, and the other side blunders to let them come away from the table for a good score, both sides are treated as "the OS" in the subsequent adjudication. > > >Eric correctly points to a problem : if we want to separate > > >subsequent from consequent, then it is often impossible to > > >determine the "what would have happened without the > > >infraction but with the error". I agree that in this case > > >(and many others) it is impossible : you cannot determine > > >what would have happened in 5Di, as the same error is > > >impossible. > > > > > >But to jump from this to stating that it is wrong to ever > > >attempt that exercise is a leap that I would not dare to > > >make. > > > > I have not taken that leap. > >OK, sorry, but it seemed to me that you were argueing >against my points by saying that it was impossible in some >cases. >If that is not your argumentation, then I did not understand >what was, and we've probably lost the thread somewhere. It is impossible in some cases to find presumptive table action in which the (ESI) damage would have been sustained absent the infraction. It is, as Herman says, always possible to make some kind of "equity" post-adjustment once the presumptive table action leading to the initial AssAS has been determined. > > I agree that we should always attempt to > > reconstruct a presumptive result for the hypothetical in which the > > infraction didn't occur but the error did. But even though we always > > attempt to do so, there will be times when it proves impossible, > > because the premise of the hypothetical leads to a logical > > impossibility. > >I have demonstrated that we do not need to do this. We can >easily subtract from the normal AS the difference between >the normal result with the infraction and the result with >the infraction and the error. Easy, but as David B. has demonstrated, only legal where L12C3 applies. > > What I disagree with is the notion that when we cannot > > construct the necessary hypothetical result we should go on to find > > some other way to penalize the NOS for the error. > >We are not penalizing NOS, we are not letting them get away >with it. I don't understand this. If this is true, it must be equally true that we are not penalizing the OS for using UI or giving MI or whatever, we are [merely] not letting them get away with it. I can't find Herman's distinction between "penalizing them for it" and "not letting them get away with it". > > >In many cases, it IS possible to calculate the differences. > > >Even in this one, it is quite possible. > > > > My view is that if one can determine the difference in the presumptive > > table action, it should be assumed. And Herman is quite right that if > > we can't, we can always find some kind of formula with which to > > post-adjust the presumptive result even though it would not have > > affected the table action. The debate is over whether we should want > > to, or whether we should prefer to let a non-offender "get away > > unscathed" from an egregious error that would not have affected the > > table action absent the opponents' infraction. > >The problem with the argument that the egregious error woud >not have happened absent the infraction is that it never >is. We never take egregious errors into account when >deciding AS, not even for OS! And if that were the end of it in jurisdictions that have elected to nullify L12C3 (which deep in my heart is what I really care about, of course!) I would be entirely satisfied. >But they do happen - and by throwing some of them away, we >are giving an added advantage that (IMHO) is not deserved. And if you believe that the advantage is not deserved, you modify the adjusted score to do equity, which is entirely appropriate in jurisdictions that accept L12C3. So we're back down to what is purely a matter of opinion: whether "getting away with", AKA "not being penalized for", an egregious error that could not have occurred absent an opponent's prior infraction is or is not "deserved", in other words, what you believe to be "equity". What's more, as I have already conceded to David B., an SO is entirely within its rights to provide their TDs/ACs with guidelines defining "equity". So Herman's and David's position and my own are equally legitimate, reasonable, and acceptable; which one is correct depends entirely on one's opinion of what constitutes "equity". ...For Herman (in Europe) or for David (in the UK). But the legality of their position rests on L12C3, making it illegitimate, unreasonable and unacceptable in the ACBL. Which was where I was "coming from" all along until David set me straight. Are we now all agreed on the legal issues, and at the point where the only differences between us have to do with our personal views of what "equity" is? > > >Perhaps rather than throwing away the problem, we might be > > >trying to solve it ? > > > > Only if we think that egregious errors that aren't "punished" by bad > > scores are a problem. > >I believe it is not a problem, not in any direction. The >current practice is to take these errors into account, and >this poses no problem. Maybe if we change it, we shall see >more problems from OS who will say "he revoked and got away >with it". And correspondingly fewer from NOSs who will no longer say "they penalized me for a misdefense when if the opponents hadn't cheated me I wouldn't even have been on defense". David S. has the right view of this: If someone is going to go away unhappy and mumbling about how they got screwed by the AC (and someone almost always will), we should make sure it is the OS, not the NOS. >They may not be mad about not receiving the >benefit, but they sure will be mad at opponents escaping >scot-free. Tough nuggies. Their own score is their only legitimate concern; their opponents' score is not. If they're unhappy because they dislike their opponents and were hoping the committee would stick it to them, f**k 'em. >So, yes, I think that your point of view would create a >problem. Failure to achieve some particular definition of equity is only a problem only if one accepts that particular definition of equity. This thread has been fun, interesting and enlightening, but this looks to me to be all we have left to debate about. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 16 03:30:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FGTNq19547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 03:29:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2FGTHt19543 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 03:29:17 +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 f2FGTDT15824 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:29:13 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f2FGTCN03623 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:29:12 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:29:11 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 QAA11825 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:29:09 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA22182 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:29:08 GMT Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:29:08 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200103151629.QAA22182@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote (quoting me initially): > >I think it is relevant. > > > >It is no harder to defend against a 1D opening [unbalanced with > >D or balanced including Kxx Kxx xx AKxxx or Kxx Kxx AKxxx xx] > >when unbalanced hands with clubs open 1C and 2C is strong, > >than it is to defend against the same 1D opening > >when unbalanced hands with clubs open 2C and 1C is strong. > > So? The fact that YC allows precision 1D is relevant to whether they allow a random minor. Either opening of 1D is equally hard to defend against. Perhaps my unwritten assumption is that "easy/hard to play against" is a major factor in deciding whether a bid should be permitted. Elsewhere, DWS wrote: > So, tell me the advantages of playing a random minor when the system > does not need it. The advantage is that it conceals (not misleadingly) our minor suit length on balanced hands and makes an eventual NT contract harder to defend. If you claim random minor opening "mislead" opponents, then so does a multi 2D: on lead against 2D-3NT (to play regardless of partner's major) you don't know which is opener's longer major; on lead against 1m-1M-1NT-3NT you don't know which is opener's longer minor. > My opinion is not completely formed,... Yet you seem to be very dismissive of those whose opinions differ from your current (incompletely formed) position. Why is it so obvious that attempting to conceal something from partner and opponents must mean your motives are to deceive/mislead. Sincerely 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 Mar 16 03:36:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FGZld19559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 03:35:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2FGZet19555 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 03:35:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2FGZaI35630 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:35:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315111651.00b93430@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, 15 Mar 2001 11:35:33 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010315131225.007da1f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314113655.00b80ee0@127.0.0.1> <3AAEA0A9.611F5026@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:12 AM 3/15/01, alain wrote: >At 11:45 14/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > > >Absolutely not. Ruffing high is a bad play even if the overruff was > >being threatened, but it is far from being wild, gambling, irrational, > >egregious, or a potential attempt at a double shot. > >AG : it is irrational at a high enough level of play. It is a no-win case. >If clubs are indeed 6-3, the trump promotion is automatic, high ruff or >not. If they are not, of course, you should not ruff high. > >Id South's standard of play is high enough to be 'compelled' to see this, >he ceased to play bridge. Good Lord, where will it all end? It will end, I suppose, when Meckstroth and Rodwell appear as the NOS before an AC after their opponents took blatant advantage of UI to find a good save, pushed them a level higher than they would have gotten to absent the infraction, and they went down one, taking the same number of tricks as everyone else in the room who played in the same suit. The committee will emerge bleary-eyed from 13 hours of intensive analysis and announce that they have denied redress to the NOS because a player of Mr. Rodwell's caliber should have realized that had he crashed his king under his ace at trick 2 and thrown his LHO in with the queen at trick 3, she would have been forced to make a return that would have allowed the rectification of the count at trick 8 which would have set up the double-reverse blind stepping-stone guard trump squeeze that would have executed at trick 11, allowing the contract to make, and that by not doing so he had failed to "play bridge". If ruffing up on the original hand, notwithstanding that it can be shown to be a no-win play, is "not playing bridge" then the Earth holds a lot fewer bridge players than anyone imagines. They told the poor guy when he paid his entry fee that he would get to "play bridge", but, although he did his best, it wasn't good enough. Do they owe him a refund? 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 Mar 16 03:38:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FGbrD19571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 03:37:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f2FGbjt19567 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 03:37:45 +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 14dakv-0000m7-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:37:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:33:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst writes > >>Ahem. In "random minor" you open 1D when you have diamonds, 1 club >>when you have clubs and either when you're balanced. there is nothing >>there which is disruptive, or designed to damage the opponents. > > Perhaps. > > Or we could argue that the *only* point of playing it is to mislead >oppos as to your minor-suit length. > >>It is your opinion, after Vernes, that showing the relative length of >>minor in balanced hands is bad bridge. > > My opinion is not completely formed, but I am not sure how Vernes >comes into it. He may have proved that pairs do not need to know minor >length *usually* in balanced hands, but he surely has not proved that >not knowing has any advantage to constructive bidding? > >>the prec example is used to show that the relative length of the minors >>is *not* relevant, and *not* destructive. > > Of course it is relevant. You always will get the occasional hand >where Precision players miss 6C or 6D because of the system. Their >advantage is the ability to play a strong club. Any Precision pairs >that expect to bid slams on 4-4 minor fits as efficiently as a pair >playing four-card minors has being chewing the wrong type of grass. In >practice it is the normal tradeoff in system: Precision pairs are not >silly enough to think their lack of definition does not matter, just >that the advantages of their system outweigh the disadvantages. > > So, tell me the advantages of playing a random minor when the system >does not need it. > It is a method whereby one does not need to tell the opponents which minor is held on balanced hands, so as to stay level with the field. There's no destructive element involved. Just an element of concealment 1C 1H 1NT (14-16) vs 1NT (14-16) same auction by opener, at least. If you ban this then you ban the 1NT opener 11-13 as being destructive, since it's absurd to open 1NT on 11-13. We do it to conceal our hand shape. With full disclosure OB 9.1.4 doesn't get a look in. "... primary purpose to deceive intentionally ...". Relax David, it's legal, and is so at level 2. -- 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 Mar 16 04:05:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FH5J019593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 04:05:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f2FH5Dt19589 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 04:05:13 +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 f2FH58r12599 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:05:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@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, 15 Mar 2001 12:05:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:18 PM 3/14/01, David wrote: >John (MadDog) Probst writes > > >Ahem. In "random minor" you open 1D when you have diamonds, 1 club > >when you have clubs and either when you're balanced. there is nothing > >there which is disruptive, or designed to damage the opponents. > > Perhaps. > > Or we could argue that the *only* point of playing it is to mislead >oppos as to your minor-suit length. No we can't, because it doesn't mislead them. We could argue that the only point of playing it is to "not lead" your opponents as to your minor-suit length, but that is something entirely different. It is concealment, just as when you follow suit with random spot cards instead of always playing your lowest (which one could easily argue has no "constructive" purpose; it helps you only if it causes your opponent to misread the position, which it might well do, even though he fully understands that you might be false-carding, by increasing the number of positions which he must consider), and is entirely legitimate. Calling this "misleading" is the same as calling responding to a question with "I refuse to answer that question" a "misleading" answer. 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 Mar 16 04:32:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FHWSo19612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 04:32:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2FHWMt19608 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 04:32:22 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id SAA04199; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:31:59 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id SAA22519; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:31:58 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010315183445.0081e100@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 Mar 2001 18:34:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] the client and consequent damage Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi everybody, I've read hundreds of posts in the 'subsequent damage' thread, and still think that something I wrote about hasn't been considered. Perhaps this has something to do with the meaning of 'consequent'. If I'm wrong, please tell me why. This (slightly changed) deal is a good illustration. Kxx East / EW Axx x AKxxxx AJxxxxx Qxx x xxx xx KQJxxx Q10x x --- KQJxxx Axxx Jxx W N E S 3D 3H 4S ...6H ...p p 6S South is a pro, and North his client. E/W are competent players, but not South's equals. South calls the TD. East's tempo (much more than 10 sec) is acknowledged. The TD instructs to play. They call him back. When reviewing the bidding, it bcomes apparent that North was aware of the fact that he could have doubled 4S, but he remembered that, if he ended as dummy, he couldn't do anything wrong thereafter. So he did his best to ensure that his partner would play the contract, rather than having a tricky problem on lead. E/W's creation and use of UI deprived him of the prize for his clever tactics. Suffice to say that North played like a client does. 6H would have scored 80%. 6SX should have been a top. It scored 500, for about 40%. How would you adjust, if you do, assuming that North made a genuinely irrational play ? Here is my reasoning : Had the infraction not occurred, North would not have been in a position to do any blunder. N/S would have scored 80%. North's blunder could *only* have happened if E/W were to play the contract, which they did by means of an incorrection. Thus, the incorrection enabled the blunder. Can't one call the blunder *consequent* to the infraction ? Isn't causality the fact that A can be said to cause B when, all other things being equal, B will happen when A happens, and won't when A doesn't ? Isn't it the case here ? A = incorrection ; B = blunder. I can't remember what the ruling was, but I would have adjusted to 6H. Apparently, most contributors wouldn't have. I'd like them to explain me why there is no causal link between the use of UI and the blunder. 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 Mar 16 04:44:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FHhsg19630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 04:43:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2FHhlt19626 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 04:43:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id SAA02241; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:39:55 +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 SAA00160; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:43:24 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010315184612.0082a100@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 Mar 2001 18:46:12 +0100 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <200103151629.QAA22182@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:29 15/03/01 GMT, Robin Barker wrote: > >Perhaps my unwritten assumption is that "easy/hard to play against" is >a major factor in deciding whether a bid should be permitted. AG : it is, emphatically. That's why they defined BSCs. That's why you are allowed to play 2D = any GF 2-suiter at nearly any level, and why you aren't allowed to play 2D = any weak 2-suiter except at a good level. But it is slightly more problematic to defend against a random 1D (potentially containing all 15-19 NTs) than against a Precision 1D (containing balanced hands only in the 12-13 range). Because when your 2C overcall happens to be in opener's 5-card club suit, partner will sometimes have enough to take you out of the jam. However, this isn't decisive enough to classify 1D random at a higher level of un-against-playability (?) than 1D Precision style. >Elsewhere, DWS wrote: >> So, tell me the advantages of playing a random minor when the system >> does not need it. > >The advantage is that it conceals (not misleadingly) our minor suit >length on balanced hands and makes an eventual NT contract harder to >defend. AG : yes, this is a constructive, not destructive, concern. An easy and quite similar example would be the Gambling 3NT opening, especially if the suit is not supposed to be completely solid. 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 Mar 16 12:33:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G1Uxa16421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:30:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from psa836.la.asu.edu (root@psa836.la.asu.edu [129.219.44.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2G1Urt16417 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:30:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2FHgHb06257 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:42:17 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] the client and consequent damage Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:33:40 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.6.32.20010315183445.0081e100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010315183445.0081e100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01031517421706.06171@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, alain gottcheiner wrote: > I've read hundreds of posts in the 'subsequent damage' thread, and still > think that something I wrote about hasn't been considered. Perhaps this has > something to do with the meaning of 'consequent'. If I'm wrong, please tell > me why. > > This (slightly changed) deal is a good illustration. > > Kxx East / EW > Axx > x > AKxxxx > > AJxxxxx Qxx > x xxx > xx KQJxxx > Q10x x > > --- > KQJxxx > Axxx > Jxx > > W N E S > > 3D 3H > 4S ...6H ...p p > 6S > > South is a pro, and North his client. E/W are competent players, but not > South's equals. > > South calls the TD. East's tempo (much more than 10 sec) is acknowledged. > The TD instructs to play. They call him back. > When reviewing the bidding, it bcomes apparent that North was aware of the > fact that he could have doubled 4S, but he remembered that, if he ended as > dummy, he couldn't do anything wrong thereafter. So he did his best to > ensure that his partner would play the contract, rather than having a > tricky problem on lead. > E/W's creation and use of UI deprived him of the prize for his clever tactics. > Suffice to say that North played like a client does. > 6H would have scored 80%. 6SX should have been a top. It scored 500, for > about 40%. > > How would you adjust, if you do, assuming that North made a genuinely > irrational play ? > > Here is my reasoning : > Had the infraction not occurred, North would not have been in a position to > do any blunder. N/S would have scored 80%. > North's blunder could *only* have happened if E/W were to play the > contract, which they did by means of an incorrection. Thus, the > incorrection enabled the blunder. This is exactly the "irrational, wild, or gambling" situation, and N-S should not get an adjustment. N-S were not damaged by the E-W infraction, because the opponents took a bad save as a possible result of UI. While it is true that the UI infraction made North's blunder possible, it did not *cause* the situation of the blunder; the primary cause was that North forgot how to play bridge. For that matter, if the crucial trick had been lost because North failed to break up an endplay (which is rational play for a player of North's caliber), I would still say that the infraction did not cause North's error; however, it caused a situation in which ordinary play would have led to a worse result, and thus it did cause damage. Thus there would be an adjustment in this situation. An infraction which causes the opponents to get a possible +500 or +1100 when they should have been +980 causes damage (but no adjustment is needed if +1100 is scored). An infraction which causes the opponents to get a clear +1100 rather that +980 did not damage them. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 16 12:33:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G1TYC16415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:29:35 +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 f2G1TSt16411 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:29:29 +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 OAA13317 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:49:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA03224 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:49:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:49:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103151949.OAA03224@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] the client and consequent damage X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner A: > Suffice to say that North played like a client does. ... B: > How would you adjust, if you do, assuming that North made a genuinely > irrational play ? I hope we all agree that the above two descriptions are not at all the same. It may be interesting to discuss adjustments in both cases, but the outcomes will very likely differ, at least under the CoP and probably elsewhere as well. In A, I expect all of us adjust to 6H. In B, there will be a difference of opinion, and the outcome may depend on whether L12C3 is enabled. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 16 12:38:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G1a2I16439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:36:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f150.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.15.150]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2G1Zut16435 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:35:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:10:02 -0800 Received: from 208.11.8.3 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:10:02 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.11.8.3] From: "David Kent" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:10:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Mar 2001 21:10:02.0433 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CF60310:01C0AD94] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. >Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:18:17 +0000 > >John (MadDog) Probst writes > > >Ahem. In "random minor" you open 1D when you have diamonds, 1 club > >when you have clubs and either when you're balanced. there is nothing > >there which is disruptive, or designed to damage the opponents. > > Perhaps. > > Or we could argue that the *only* point of playing it is to mislead >oppos as to your minor-suit length. > > >It is your opinion, after Vernes, that showing the relative length of > >minor in balanced hands is bad bridge. > > My opinion is not completely formed, but I am not sure how Vernes >comes into it. He may have proved that pairs do not need to know minor >length *usually* in balanced hands, but he surely has not proved that >not knowing has any advantage to constructive bidding? > > >the prec example is used to show that the relative length of the minors > >is *not* relevant, and *not* destructive. > > Of course it is relevant. You always will get the occasional hand >where Precision players miss 6C or 6D because of the system. Their >advantage is the ability to play a strong club. Any Precision pairs >that expect to bid slams on 4-4 minor fits as efficiently as a pair >playing four-card minors has being chewing the wrong type of grass. In >practice it is the normal tradeoff in system: Precision pairs are not >silly enough to think their lack of definition does not matter, just >that the advantages of their system outweigh the disadvantages. > > So, tell me the advantages of playing a random minor when the system >does not need it. > To take the Precision analogy 1 step further. Many time a Precision auction will go 1M-4M. 4M shows either a good hand with no slam interest with as few as 3 card support or a preemptive hand with usually 5+ card support. That is not to say that they may not play in 4M when 6 is cold. The reason for doing so is so that the opponents have the opportunity to make a mistake, either by bidding when they should be passing, passing when they should be bidding, or since so little information has be relayed they may make an inferior opening lead. Maybe this costs them in their constructive bidding 5% of the time, they gain 10% of the time and it does not matter 85% of the time. Similarly, playing random minors, opening balanced hands with a random minor gains 15%, loses 10% and makes no difference 75%. Needless to say, these numbers are completely arbitrary. The point is that the pair has made a conscious decision to take the constructive bidding 'hit' in order that it puts more pressure on the opponents to make a mistake. Perhaps at the level at which this 'random minor' pair plays, their strategy is a winning ploy. Maybe by moving to another level, their losses stay the same but their gains go down since the opponents will make fewer mistakes. Maybe they will change their system because of this. However, this should be their decision, not a TD who says that they should not be able to play their system since they cannot show that it improves constructive bidding. Clearly it does not, but nor is that the objective. Dave Kent _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mar 16 12:44:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G1fMb16455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:41:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe53.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2G1fGt16451 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:41:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:06:19 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.247] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314113655.00b80ee0@127.0.0.1><3AAEA0A9.611F5026@hotmail.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010315111651.00b93430@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:18:36 -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: 16 Mar 2001 01:06:19.0753 (UTC) FILETIME=[4F4D5D90:01C0ADB5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style -s- | Good Lord, where will it all end? | | It will end, I suppose, when Meckstroth and Rodwell appear as the NOS | before an AC after their opponents took blatant advantage of UI to find | a good save, pushed them a level higher than they would have gotten to | absent the infraction, and they went down one, taking the same number | of tricks as everyone else in the room who played in the same | suit. The committee will emerge bleary-eyed from 13 hours of intensive | analysis and announce that they have denied redress to the NOS because | a player of Mr. Rodwell's caliber should have realized that had he | crashed his king under his ace at trick 2 and thrown his LHO in with | the queen at trick 3, she would have been forced to make a return that | would have allowed the rectification of the count at trick 8 which | would have set up the double-reverse blind stepping-stone guard trump | squeeze that would have executed at trick 11, allowing the contract to | make, and that by not doing so he had failed to "play bridge". | | If ruffing up on the original hand, notwithstanding that it can be | shown to be a no-win play, is "not playing bridge" then the Earth holds | a lot fewer bridge players than anyone imagines. They told the poor | guy when he paid his entry fee that he would get to "play bridge", but, | although he did his best, it wasn't good enough. Do they owe him a refund? | | | 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 If I have this straight, let's say 4H was the last making contract [without delicate play : )] and there was an infraction in 4S. The damage was that Meckwell were unable to declare in 4H. Well, how were they damaged if they thought they were making 5H- they bid it didn't they? If 4S is going down and Meckwell's 5H is going down, why is Meckwell bidding 5H unless they believe it will be a better score than 4S? Well, they believed the indicated capacity of the hand was 5H and they were wrong, where is the connection to the damage caused by 4S? It was gone once Meckwell made the mistake of 5H. Why should 5H be rolled back to 4H? It does not make sense to me. However, the odds heavily favor defeating 4S or 4SX and the connection to the infraction would still be there so this would make sense to roll back to 4H. Let me pose a question. Let's say that there was no UI. Would there be any question as to requiring the result to stand? I should think not, that is playing bridge. As far as remedies for UI infractions, shouldn't equity be based on the likely result[s] absent the UI? 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 Fri Mar 16 12:46:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G1hOU16463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:43:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.wrs.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2G1hIt16459 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:43:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([192.103.52.203]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA28397 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:53:33 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:55:05 -0500 Message-ID: <001c01c0ad92$363a6140$cb3467c0@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@127.0.0.1> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This may be a silly observation... then again, it wouldn't be my first. Reading this entire thread regarding random minors, I am struck that this entire topic is [essentially] equivalent to a psychic cue bid. Many players will, on occassion, make a cue bid during a slam action and show a first round control in a suit that is wide open. This is a perfectly acceptable and valid technique. Suppose that we can characterize the cue bidding style for one such player. If this player makes a cue bid, he will hold a first round control in the bid suit with frequency X. The suit will be wide open with frequency (1 - X) In a similar fashion, it is perfectly acceptable and valid for the Hideous Hog to psyche a 1C opening in order to try to deter a club lead against an eventual NT contract. Here, once again, if the Hog's behaviour can be defined we might describe his hand as showing a standard 1C opening with frequency X and a balanced hand with primary diamonds with frequency (1 - X). Assuming that we chose an equivalent probability density function, I fail to see the difference between a style that uses random minor opening and a pysche. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOrEsJ7FdMFbo8dHHEQIEzQCgsKEwTD+ILdoCubT7wfNW/M5SvGcAn2WV NjZ4/Z8zEakiGzgTTFZn/jKF =34Uc -----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 Mar 16 13:08:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G25nL16501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:05:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2G25et16493 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:05:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-77-16.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.77.16]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2G257L12098 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:05:07 GMT Message-ID: <006e01c0adbd$ae6431c0$104d063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be><4.3.2.7.1.20010314091928.00b80230@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010315091334.00a9d1f0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:27:34 -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 "it is better to live quietly under some degree of misrepresentation than to attempt to remove it by the uncertain process of letter-writing." - Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again > > L12C3 allows ACs to do essentially anything they > wish in order to achieve equity. The statement in > the CoP is a guideline provided by the WBF to ACs > as to how to interpret "equity". This is logical, > consonent with the laws, and entirely reasonable. > The thread seems to have bifurcated into two > discussions, one on procedures the AC might use > to achieve equity as defined by the CoP, the other > on whether the definition of equity in the CoP is a > good and/or useful one. > > My own personal interest, of course, has to do > with how the Kaplan doctrine applies in the ACBL. > David's last paragraph says that when we apply > the Kaplan doctrine, we are "vary[ing] an assigned > adjusted score [which we obtain by applying L12C2] > in order to do equity". In other words, the legal > basis for it is found in L12C3. Therefore the use of > the Kaplan doctrine is illegal in the ACBL, which has > elected to nullify L12C3 in their jurisdiction; ACs in > the ACBL are bound by law to adjudicate redress > for (any kind of) damage from an opponent's > infraction (unless L12C1 applies) in strict > accordance with L12C2. Is this the position of > the WBF? > +=+ I am a little doubtful as to the meaning here of 'Kaplan Doctrine'. Edgar did not intend 12C2 to be an instrument for the punishment of an offence, but a mechanical procedure for restoring any lost equity following an irregularity. Because of the way it works, many have come to see it as punishing. Law 12C3 is for those who do not believe that what is achieved by that kind of algorithmic approach is equity, and who wish to proceed by way of bridge judgement in the hands ultimately of appeals committees. In the WBF we have a mix of people brought up in very different bridge climes; we are doing our best to find ground on which we can work together for stability and consistency, and to overcome the volatility inherent in the conflicts of our widely differing mores. We have not arrived in Valhalla, and probably we never will, but the CoP is devised to help us on the way to Asgard. Alas, 'long is the way and hard, that out of hell leads up to light'. The 'position of the WBF' is that we have adopted the CoP, but being human, frail and of uncertain understanding, as yet we are by no means sure-footed and confident in the practice. Yet we try, we try.~ 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 Mar 16 13:08:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G25o416502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:05:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2G25gt16494 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:05:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-77-16.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.77.16]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2G259L12110 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:05:09 GMT Message-ID: <006f01c0adbd$afac4220$104d063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:05:25 -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 "it is better to live quietly under some degree of misrepresentation than to attempt to remove it by the uncertain process of letter-writing." - Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 12:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again >infraction and damage. > >- One definition included "wild, gambling > > or irrational". > > > >- The EBU changed that definition to > > "Wild or Gambling". > > That is not true. The WBF, EK and other > authorities decided on "wild or gambling" > and that was the standard for many years. > Recently the WBF decided to amend this > definition but the EBU did not accept the > current change. > +=+ It was EK who started the hunt for words that would raise high the threshold over which to pass before restricting the redress given to the NOS. He alleged that in the ACBL the use of 'egregious' had led to an excessive dilution of the meaning we had all intended by 'wild and gambling'. It was under ton's leadership that we eventually put in the word 'irrational' by which we aimed to restore and strengthen the barrier to easy refusal of redress. To judge by some comments the intention has not been fully realised, nor indeed fully appreciated. However, the link is to the quality of the action and not to the player's purpose. ~ 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 Mar 16 13:12:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G29vV16520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:09:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2G29pt16516 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:09:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-77-16.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.77.16]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2G253L12077; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:05:03 GMT Message-ID: <006d01c0adbd$ad3f39c0$104d063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7E0@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:53:12 -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 " Such laboured nothings in so strange a style Amaze th' unlearn'd, and make the learned smile," ~ Alexander Pope. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Marvin L. French' ; Bridge Laws Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:36 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again > > > > I didn't intend to disagree with what you say here. Of course the OS > > score is adjusted even when the NOS has redress annulled. I > > think that's > > what the LC minutes say. My disagreement is with the partial redress > > that the CoP calls for in certain situations, when applying L12C2. I > > didn't see that in the LC minutes, which seems to say full > > redress or no > > redress, nothing halfway, for the NOS. > > It says full redress, but 'full' as far as the damage was caused by the > infraction. > > Having to pay 11 euro's (let us start using those, a euro being almost as > much as a dollar) and giving 50 I should get back 39. But I got back 29 and > checking this once more I succeed in losing another 10. I am entitled to > full redress. You are saying that without the mistake I never would have > lost another 10, which might be true. The shop will tell you that you might > be right and apologize, but their full redress is restricted to 10 euro's. > > Reading this again I start to like this example. > > ton +=+ Not bad at all, ton; not bad at all. ~ 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 Mar 16 13:28:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G2PTx16540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:25:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2G2PMt16536 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:25:23 +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 14djvb-000MjW-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:25:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:23:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0ad92$363a6140$cb3467c0@isi.com> In-Reply-To: <001c01c0ad92$363a6140$cb3467c0@isi.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 <001c01c0ad92$363a6140$cb3467c0@isi.com>, Richard Willey writes >Hash: SHA1 > >This may be a silly observation... then again, it wouldn't be my >first. > >Reading this entire thread regarding random minors, I am struck that >this entire topic is [essentially] equivalent to a psychic cue bid. >Many players will, on occassion, make a cue bid during a slam action >and show a first round control in a suit that is wide open. This is >a perfectly acceptable and valid technique. > >Suppose that we can characterize the cue bidding style for one such >player. > >If this player makes a cue bid, he will hold a first round control in >the bid suit with frequency X. >The suit will be wide open with frequency (1 - X) > >In a similar fashion, it is perfectly acceptable and valid for the >Hideous Hog to psyche a 1C opening in order to try to deter a club >lead against an eventual NT contract. Here, once again, if the Hog's >behaviour can be defined we might describe his hand as showing a >standard 1C opening with frequency X and a balanced hand with primary >diamonds with frequency (1 - X). > >Assuming that we chose an equivalent probability density function, I >fail to see the difference between a style that uses random minor >opening and a pysche. > One is alerted as system, the second must be as much a surprise to his partner as the oppo. It's precisely because of this that Alf is testing the bounds of legality. It's because he does psyche his minors quite a lot and because he is concerned that he may create a concealed partnership understanding that he asked my opinion. -- 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 Mar 16 13:31:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G2So516557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:28:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2G2Sit16552 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:28:44 +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 14djyq-0001CD-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:28:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:27:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Kent writes snip > >Perhaps at the level at which this 'random minor' pair plays, their strategy >is a winning ploy. Maybe by moving to another level, their losses stay the >same but their gains go down since the opponents will make fewer mistakes. >Maybe they will change their system because of this. We're talking about the bear pit at the YC. There *isn't* a stronger game in the UK except perhaps for the National Pairs Final, and that'll be close. > However, this should >be their decision, not a TD who says that they should not be able to play >their system since they cannot show that it improves constructive bidding. >Clearly it does not, but nor is that the objective. > It probably improves their expectation, which is far more significant than the accuracy of their bidding. -- 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 Mar 16 13:44:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G2fas16581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:41:36 +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 f2G2fUt16577 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:41:30 +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 SAA13271; Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:39:17 -0800 Message-Id: <200103160239.SAA13271@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:35:33 EST." <4.3.2.7.1.20010315111651.00b93430@127.0.0.1> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:39:15 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:12 AM 3/15/01, alain wrote: > > >At 11:45 14/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >Absolutely not. Ruffing high is a bad play even if the overruff was > > >being threatened, but it is far from being wild, gambling, irrational, > > >egregious, or a potential attempt at a double shot. > > > >AG : it is irrational at a high enough level of play. It is a no-win case. > >If clubs are indeed 6-3, the trump promotion is automatic, high ruff or > >not. If they are not, of course, you should not ruff high. > >Id South's standard of play is high enough to be 'compelled' to see this, > >he ceased to play bridge. I agree that it's a no-win play (barring a defensive error, as Peter Gill pointed out); however, I had to write the whole hand out on paper and go through the play myself to convince myself that there was no way to ruff high and then shorten myself enough so that I could get the lead in dummy at trick 12 to lead through East's A-x into my Q-7. Not that I'm an expert; still, I think the standard of play would have to be *awfully* high for a mistake like this to be considered "irrational". > Good Lord, where will it all end? > > It will end, I suppose, when Meckstroth and Rodwell appear as the NOS > before an AC after their opponents took blatant advantage of UI to find > a good save, pushed them a level higher than they would have gotten to > absent the infraction, and they went down one, taking the same number > of tricks as everyone else in the room who played in the same > suit. The committee will emerge bleary-eyed from 13 hours of intensive > analysis and announce that they have denied redress to the NOS because > a player of Mr. Rodwell's caliber should have realized that had he > crashed his king under his ace at trick 2 and thrown his LHO in with > the queen at trick 3, she would have been forced to make a return that > would have allowed the rectification of the count at trick 8 which > would have set up the double-reverse blind stepping-stone guard trump > squeeze that would have executed at trick 11, allowing the contract to > make, and that by not doing so he had failed to "play bridge". No, that's silly. You need at least four cards to execute the double-reverse blind stepping-stone guard trump squeeze, so it couldn't have been executed before trick 10. Really, Eric, don't you know *anything*? But I had to laugh when I read the above---it really gets on my nerves when I read an appeal case where a normal error, the kind I make all the time, is considered an "irrational" play. When the Laws use the term "irrational" in the section on claims, they make it clear that plays that are merely "careless" or "inferior" don't qualify. If, on the hand in question, South had made an (atrocious) claim, and we were going over all the possible lines to see what the result would have been, I guarantee you that ruffing high would *not* be considered an "irrational" play---merely careless or inferior. I'm not saying that the CoP use of "irrational" must encompass exactly the same plays as the claim laws do; however, the same English word is being used, and it doesn't make sense that there could be a very wide chasm between the meanings in the two cases. To me, "irrational" connotes that something was done without any reason at all, and most errors just don't qualify. Even when I make an error I'd later consider "egregious", I generally have some reason why I'm doing it, although my reasons are generally based on incomplete thinking or carelessness (or caffeine deficiency). So I think that even those errors shouldn't be considered "irrational", by any common definition of the term. On the other hand, all my partner's errors, even when he misguesses a two-way finesse for a queen, are irrational, at least until the end of the post-mortem(*). Maybe the Directors and Committees are guilty of applying the same kind of standard: if a bid or play is one that would cause the Director or Committee member to refer to his or her regular partner (or spouse) as a Blithering Idiot after the hand, why then, it must be irrational. Anyway, if I can't come up with a consistent definition of "irrational" even for my own use, perhaps the term is just too subjective and should be eliminated. Perhaps that's why the EBU decided to go with just "Wild or Gambling". -- Adam (*) I'm just kidding, of course. Really, the only time my partner does anything irrational is every time he makes a bid. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 16 15:00:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G3vEe16666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:57:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wesserver (xd84b4f96.ip.ggn.net [216.75.79.150]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2G3v8t16662 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:57:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from 216.75.79.150 ([216.75.79.150]) by wesserver with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2172.1); Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:02:55 -0500 Content-type: text/html Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:47:47 -0500 From: cyclone@planetsweep.net Subject: [BLML] Introducing Cyclone from Planet Sweep To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Mar 2001 22:02:55.0777 (UTC) FILETIME=[B06BE110:01C0AD9B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk pLaNeT cYcLoNe !!!________________________
 
 
This mail is sent unsolicited, if you do not wish to receive these kinds of emails from Planet Sweep in the future, please reply to this message with "remove" in the subject line or you may use our online service by clicking Remove My Address.
We respect your privacy!
 
Download Cyclone !!!
 

PLANET SWEEP UNLEASHES TWISTER

New York, NY - Get swept away by CYCLONE, the ultimate in extreme web surfing technology from Planet Sweep.  This patent-pending technology brings an exciting new tool to the Internet user.

CYCLONE makes searching the Internet faster and more complete.  It gets you where you want to go quickly and effortlessly.

Begin your search and set you parameters, CYCLONE does the rest.  It captures each page relevant to your search.  You get to see each page.  No more searching through text descriptions.  No more second-guessing.  Each web page that matches your keyword is displayed for 15 seconds, 10 seconds, 5 seconds, you decide.  Watch as site after site flashes on screen, until you see exactly what you are looking for.  You can pause within a page and narrow your search.  You can go forward or backward as each page is displayed.  You can change how long you see each page.  You are in control.

Get CYCLONE and see what user-friendly really means.  Download your free copy now at http://www.planetcyclone.com and rediscover the thrill of the surf.

ABOUT PLANET SWEEP INC..
Headquartered in New York City Planet Sweep is an Internet Technology company creating , sourcing and distributing the latest in technological advancements.

cyclone@planetsweep.net.

DOWNLOAD NOW!

Happy Planet Searching!!!
Powered By Planet Sweep

This mail is sent unsolicited, if you do not wish to receive these kinds of emails from Planet Sweep in the future, please reply to this message with "remove" in the subject line or you may use our online service by clicking Remove My Address
We respect your privacy!

 
-- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 16 19:53:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2G8osr10970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:50:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2G8olt10966 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:50:47 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA31501; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:50:39 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Mar 16 09:54:19 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 <01K19DPBHP8A004FM0@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:49:50 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:44:41 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:49:46 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] the client and consequent damage To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7EB@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 > Can't one call the blunder *consequent* to the infraction ? > Isn't causality the fact that A can be said to cause B when, all other > things being equal, B will happen when A happens, and won't > when A doesn't ? > Isn't it the case here ? A = incorrection ; B = blunder. > > I can't remember what the ruling was, but I would have adjusted to 6H. > Apparently, most contributors wouldn't have. I'd like them to > explain me > why there is no causal link between the use of UI and the blunder. > > Regards, > > Alain. This is becoming a philosophical debate, with free will, determination, responsibility etc. at stake. In your world there is just causality, it is based on molecules and even smaller particles moving and chemical processes and the predictability of anything happening. The butterfly causing a hurricane, so the Chinese boy clapping in his hand responsible for a couple of billions damage. This north player, not understanding bridge but listening to his opponents telling him that +1100 wasn't that difficult, destroys the next board as well. In my world this probably would have happened anyway, in your world this is a consequence of the hesitation 6S. In your world north not sleeping well afterwards, still trying to find out where things went wrong and (thereby?) causing an accident when driving next morning, still may accuse this EW pair as responsible for all his suffering. Do I need to continue describing what happened in the two years thereafter? Terrible things I assure you. A: hesitation 6S and B: blunder you say that without A, B won't happen. Why not? The situation will not be the same, I agree. But would north have played differentwithout the hesitation and west still bidding 6S? 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 Mar 16 21:38:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GAcMx23967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:38:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GAc7t23950 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:38:08 +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 14drcO-000BZF-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:38:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:24:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >It is a method whereby one does not need to tell the opponents which >minor is held on balanced hands, so as to stay level with the field. >There's no destructive element involved. Just an element of concealment How do you reconcile the above statement with the one below? >With full disclosure OB 9.1.4 doesn't get a look in. "... primary >purpose to deceive intentionally ...". Relax David, it's legal, and is >so at level 2. I know there is full disclosure, but if the full disclosure is that when we open 1C or 1D we choose in a way that intentionally hides the suit lengths, why is it 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 Fri Mar 16 21:38:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GAcNB23969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:38:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GAc7t23952 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:38:08 +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 14drcP-000BZH-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:38:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:59:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <200103151629.QAA22182@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200103151629.QAA22182@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes >DWS wrote (quoting me initially): >> >I think it is relevant. >> > >> >It is no harder to defend against a 1D opening [unbalanced with >> >D or balanced including Kxx Kxx xx AKxxx or Kxx Kxx AKxxx xx] >> >when unbalanced hands with clubs open 1C and 2C is strong, >> >than it is to defend against the same 1D opening >> >when unbalanced hands with clubs open 2C and 1C is strong. >> >> So? > >The fact that YC allows precision 1D is relevant to whether they allow >a random minor. Either opening of 1D is equally hard to defend against. Unless I have misunderstood the YC allows any conventions at a specific Level of EBU regulation. 9.1.4 has nothing whatever to do with whether a convention is "equally hard to defend against": it is not a relevant consideration in the legality of permitted methods. >Perhaps my unwritten assumption is that "easy/hard to play against" is >a major factor in deciding whether a bid should be permitted. The discussion concerns the legality under areg that does not include this factor. >Elsewhere, DWS wrote: >> So, tell me the advantages of playing a random minor when the system >> does not need it. > >The advantage is that it conceals (not misleadingly) our minor suit >length on balanced hands and makes an eventual NT contract harder to >defend. > >If you claim random minor opening "mislead" opponents, >then so does a multi 2D: >on lead against > 2D-3NT (to play regardless of partner's major) >you don't know which is opener's longer major; >on lead against > 1m-1M-1NT-3NT >you don't know which is opener's longer minor. > >> My opinion is not completely formed,... > >Yet you seem to be very dismissive of those whose opinions differ >from your current (incompletely formed) position. Why is it so >obvious that attempting to conceal something from partner and >opponents must mean your motives are to deceive/mislead. What other purpose is there? If you bid your longer minor your slam bidding in the minors will be better, not much, true, but it will. So what purpose is there in concealing your minor length? It is to hide your minor length from opponents. Of course, other bids conceal suits, but if that is not their prime reason then 9.1.4 does not affect them. The Multi is a typical 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 Fri Mar 16 21:38:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GAcPc23970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:38:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GAcBt23957 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:38:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14drcU-000BZE-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:38:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:01:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <200103151629.QAA22182@tempest.npl.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.20010315184612.0082a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010315184612.0082a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >At 16:29 15/03/01 GMT, Robin Barker wrote: >> >>Perhaps my unwritten assumption is that "easy/hard to play against" is >>a major factor in deciding whether a bid should be permitted. > >AG : it is, emphatically. That's why they defined BSCs. That's why you are >allowed to play 2D = any GF 2-suiter at nearly any level, and why you >aren't allowed to play 2D = any weak 2-suiter except at a good level. > >But it is slightly more problematic to defend against a random 1D >(potentially containing all 15-19 NTs) than against a Precision 1D >(containing balanced hands only in the 12-13 range). >Because when your 2C overcall happens to be in opener's 5-card club suit, >partner will sometimes have enough to take you out of the jam. > >However, this isn't decisive enough to classify 1D random at a higher level >of un-against-playability (?) than >1D Precision style. But what difference does un-against-playability make where an English regulation is in question which does not mention in any way level of un- against-playability? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 16 21:38:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GAcN423968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:38:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GAc7t23951 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:38:08 +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 14drcP-000BZG-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:38:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:25:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 12:18 PM 3/14/01, David wrote: > >>John (MadDog) Probst writes >> >> >Ahem. In "random minor" you open 1D when you have diamonds, 1 club >> >when you have clubs and either when you're balanced. there is nothing >> >there which is disruptive, or designed to damage the opponents. >> >> Perhaps. >> >> Or we could argue that the *only* point of playing it is to mislead >>oppos as to your minor-suit length. > >No we can't, because it doesn't mislead them. We could argue that the >only point of playing it is to "not lead" your opponents as to your >minor-suit length, but that is something entirely different. It is >concealment, just as when you follow suit with random spot cards >instead of always playing your lowest (which one could easily argue has >no "constructive" purpose; it helps you only if it causes your opponent >to misread the position, which it might well do, even though he fully >understands that you might be false-carding, by increasing the number >of positions which he must consider), and is entirely >legitimate. Calling this "misleading" is the same as calling >responding to a question with "I refuse to answer that question" a >"misleading" answer. If it were illegal to mislead your oppos to your suit lengths when following suits then false-carding would be illegal, yes? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 16 21:41:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GAfPe24004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:41:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GAfIt24000 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:41:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id LAA14359; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:37:26 +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 LAA00082; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:40:54 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010316114342.00829100@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 Mar 2001 11:43:42 +0100 To: "Richard Willey" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <001c01c0ad92$363a6140$cb3467c0@isi.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@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 15:55 15/03/01 -0500, Richard Willey wrote: > >Assuming that we chose an equivalent probability density function, I >fail to see the difference between a style that uses random minor >opening and a pysche. AG : there is but one : the 1C/1D opening is not a psyche, since it defined as ambiguous (thus is not made in full ignorance from partner). But the reasoning serves at least one purpose : random minor openings have about the same effects as occasional psyches in well-defined situations. Since the latter are allowed, the former must be. 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 Mar 16 22:26:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GBQ2B29248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:26:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GBPtt29244 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:25:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f2GBPoT15967 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:25:50 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f2GBPma19954 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:25:49 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:25:48 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 LAA14366 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:25:47 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA22319 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:25:47 GMT Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:25:47 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200103161125.LAA22319@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David writes: > What other purpose is there? If you bid your longer minor your slam > bidding in the minors will be better, not much, true, but it will. So > what purpose is there in concealing your minor length? It is to hide > your minor length from opponents. [One more go from me, then I give up] The primary purpose of this part of the method is to conceal minor suit lengths so that more 3NT contracts make, and the (small) price we pay is that our slam bidding in the minors will be poorer. Why can't we choose to pay this price? > Of course, other bids conceal suits, but if that is not their prime > reason then 9.1.4 does not affect them. The Multi is a typical case. But noone claims that the multi mislead opponents as to major suit length. Do you agree that the methods in question "conceal" rather than "mislead" (or deceive)? In which case they are not covered by OB9.1.4. 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 Mar 16 22:41:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GBem202848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:40:48 +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 f2GBeet02802 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:40:41 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA15194; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:40:08 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA14725; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:40:06 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010316124255.00823100@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 Mar 2001 12:42:55 +0100 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@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 00:24 16/03/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > I know there is full disclosure, but if the full disclosure is that >when we open 1C or 1D we choose in a way that intentionally hides the >suit lengths, why is it legal? AG : because neither I nor you nor anyone can say it is illegal. You see, 'everything that is not clearly disallowed is allowed' is a fundamental principle of Law. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 16 23:27:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GCRCY19328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:27:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GCR6t19296 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:27:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.250.37] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14dtJq-00042n-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:26:59 +0000 Message-ID: <002001c0ae14$455437a0$25fa7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010316114342.00829100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:26:01 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > AG : there is but one : the 1C/1D opening is not a psyche, since it defined > as ambiguous (thus is not made in full ignorance from partner). But the > reasoning serves at least one purpose : random minor openings have about > the same effects as occasional psyches in well-defined situations. Since > the latter are allowed, the former must be. Eh? If a misrepresentative call occurs in a "well-defined situation", then it is certainly not allowed, because the fact that the situation is "defined" means that some agreement exists between partners as to when a misleading call may occur. But this is beside the point; a "random minor" opening (as the term has been used in this thread) is not a psyche, since it conforms to partnership agreement and is not a departure from it. Moreover, it makes little sense to say "random minors must be allowed"; the matter appears to me to be one of regulation rather than Law, and whether or not random minors are allowed will depend on the Sponsoring Organisation charged with the regulation of conventions for its events. If it is held that the opening bids themselves are not subject to regulation because they are natural, it will still be open to the SO to ban the use of any conventions by the opening side in auctions beginning with one of a minor. The question has arisen in the context of an English pair wishing to use the method in English events. I have not commented on the question of whether or not the method contravenes English regulations, because I prefer to reserve judgement until the relevant English committee considers the matter. I would say only this: in a recent match against a pair playing "random minors" depending on the parity of the total of minor-suit spot cards, my RHO opened 1D. I overcalled 1S and my LHO raised to 2D on a balanced six count with three diamonds to the queen - a truly remarkable effort given that 1D could have been a three-card suit. Of course, it wasn't a three-card suit but a five-card suit. How did responder know this? Well, he knew what I knew - that his partner had opened the bidding after enough time to observe that his hand contained some high-card points and long diamonds, but not after nearly enough time to have added up his minor-suit spot cards. The trouble with these methods is that it really is not possible to play them ethically, however hard you try. I assure you that whatever algorithm you use, however efficient you are at applying it, and however good you are at making bids in an even tempo without expression, I or any other expert blessed with an ounce of table presence will *know* beyond shadow of doubt when you are opening a minor naturally and when you are using your algorithm. And if I, your opponent, know it - what might I your partner know? 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 Mar 16 23:45:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GCivj19580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:44:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-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 f2GCiot19573 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:44:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-90.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.90]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2GCiii18513 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:44:46 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AB1F997.A3081C2@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:31:35 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@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 David Stevenson wrote: > > > If it were illegal to mislead your oppos to your suit lengths when > following suits then false-carding would be illegal, yes? > No, David, wrong analogy. If it were illegal to NOT give signals to suit lengths. You are not obliged to tell your partner how many cards you have in a suit (in play), but if you do, you must also tell opponent. The same is true in bidding. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 16 23:45:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GCj7m19589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:45:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-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 f2GCiwt19582 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:44:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-90.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.90]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2GCiri18565 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:44:53 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AB2099E.DBA6A211@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:39:58 +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] the client and consequent damage References: <3.0.6.32.20010315183445.0081e100@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 provides a good example of the type Eric is constantly referring to. I like the example and I would rule in the way Alain has, and Eric undoubtedly would, but for specific reasons, not general ones. alain gottcheiner wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > This (slightly changed) deal is a good illustration. > > Kxx East / EW > Axx > x > AKxxxx > > AJxxxxx Qxx > x xxx > xx KQJxxx > Q10x x > > --- > KQJxxx > Axxx > Jxx > > W N E S > > 3D 3H > 4S ...6H ...p p > 6S > > South is a pro, and North his client. E/W are competent players, but not > South's equals. > > South calls the TD. East's tempo (much more than 10 sec) is acknowledged. > The TD instructs to play. They call him back. > When reviewing the bidding, it bcomes apparent that North was aware of the > fact that he could have doubled 4S, but he remembered that, if he ended as > dummy, he couldn't do anything wrong thereafter. So he did his best to > ensure that his partner would play the contract, rather than having a > tricky problem on lead. This is an important part of the story. North has already bid in such a way as to minimize the chance of blundering. > E/W's creation and use of UI deprived him of the prize for his clever tactics. > Suffice to say that North played like a client does. > 6H would have scored 80%. 6SX should have been a top. It scored 500, for > about 40%. > > How would you adjust, if you do, assuming that North made a genuinely > irrational play ? > Well, maybe this 40% only means that the blunder was not all that irrational. It was probably quite normal "for the class of player involved". > Here is my reasoning : > Had the infraction not occurred, North would not have been in a position to > do any blunder. N/S would have scored 80%. > North's blunder could *only* have happened if E/W were to play the > contract, which they did by means of an incorrection. Thus, the > incorrection enabled the blunder. > Can't one call the blunder *consequent* to the infraction ? I don't believe one can, from this alone. > Isn't causality the fact that A can be said to cause B when, all other > things being equal, B will happen when A happens, and won't when A doesn't ? > Isn't it the case here ? A = incorrection ; B = blunder. > Yes, but you have now written "B will happen". Before, it was only "B cannot happen unless". No the same thing. If we assume that this player will always blunder in 6Sp, then of course there is causality and consequent damage. But then it is also a normal result, and one in which damage would always be redressed. > I can't remember what the ruling was, but I would have adjusted to 6H. So would I, probably, but not for the reasons stated. I'm all for giving as much leeway as possible for subsequent damage, that is for not calling all SID ESID. But the mere fact that a particular point in a play would not have been reached does not mean that the infraction causes the error that follows. This is SID (self-inflicted damage). I believe it is also NESID (non-egregious self-inflicted damage). > Apparently, most contributors wouldn't have. I'd like them to explain me > why there is no causal link between the use of UI and the blunder. > Well, because there is no reason why this player would always have made this error. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 16 23:45:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GCj3G19588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:45:03 +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 f2GCist19578 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:44:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-90.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.90]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2GCioi18544 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:44:51 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AB1FF33.72734802@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:55:31 +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] MI, Alaska style References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314113655.00b80ee0@127.0.0.1> <3AAEA0A9.611F5026@hotmail.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010315111651.00b93430@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 Roger Pewick wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eric Landau > > | Good Lord, where will it all end? > | > | It will end, I suppose, when Meckstroth and Rodwell appear as the [snip] LOL ! > > If I have this straight, let's say 4H was the last making contract [without > delicate play : )] and there was an infraction in 4S. The damage was that > Meckwell were unable to declare in 4H. Well, how were they damaged if they > thought they were making 5H- they bid it didn't they? > > If 4S is going down and Meckwell's 5H is going down, why is Meckwell bidding > 5H unless they believe it will be a better score than 4S? Well, they > believed the indicated capacity of the hand was 5H and they were wrong, > where is the connection to the damage caused by 4S? It was gone once > Meckwell made the mistake of 5H. Why should 5H be rolled back to 4H? It > does not make sense to me. However, the odds heavily favor defeating 4S or > 4SX and the connection to the infraction would still be there so this would > make sense to roll back to 4H. > > Let me pose a question. > > Let's say that there was no UI. Would there be any question as to requiring > the result to stand? I should think not, that is playing bridge. As far as > remedies for UI infractions, shouldn't equity be based on the likely > result[s] absent the UI? > > regards > roger pewick Now Roger, this is going too far. Eric was making jokes when he said that it would end where it did. But you are suggesting that it must indeed go halfway there. Unless evidence to the opposite is given, it can never be a big error to go to 5He over 4Sp. Maybe X would have been better, but that is a judgment matter, and even if the inferior choice was taken, you should not deny redress. In this case, truely, NOS was put in a situation they should not have been in. Inasmuch as I believe Eric goes too far in saying "this would not have happened had the irregularity not occured", you are going too far in the other direction. I see what you are faced with, Eric, and I understand your vehemence a lot better now. Keep up the good fight, Eric ! -- 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 Mar 17 00:10:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GDAeF19619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:10:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GDAYt19615 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:10:34 +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 f2GDATG82312 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:10:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010316075848.00ab92d0@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 Mar 2001 08:09:42 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3AB0F134.CD048710@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20010228085413.00abf370@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010305084150.00b6cb80@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010307083422.00ab9ee0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010308083731.00b6b830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010309090349.00b6ab30@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010311162241.00b84100@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010312164038.00b8a960@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314075222.00b823e0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010315074859.00b94410@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:43 AM 3/15/01, Herman wrote: >Suppose the vulnerability were reversed, with 5Di 3 off a >bad score. >Suppose 4Sp were a possible alternate contract. >Suppose furthermore that they had doubled 5Sp, and that they >let this make. >Now you are going to correct to 4Sp making 5, right ? > >Even when the failure to take the setting trick were far >less egregious than it was at this table. > >This is my main problem with your approach. In the same >strain, you take into account revokes, egregious errors, bad >errors, simple errors, inferior plays, unlucky choices and >even superior plays yielding to fewer tricks. But in a >different strain, none of these count anymore. > >This is not consistent. Strain is not the criterion for determining whether the error is assumed in the presumptive contract, although it most often works out that way. I would assume the error if the presumptive play would go in such a way that the position in which the error actually occurred would have been likely to have been reached. Several posts have suggested circumstances under which the error would not be presumed even though the presumptive contract was in the same strain as the original. Cases where you would presume the error when the strains differ will be a lot rarer, but we could construct such cases. It is no less consistent for the ruling to depend on a finding of whether the play would have gone the same way absent the infraction than for it to depend on a finding of whether the bidding would have gone the same way absent 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 Mar 17 00:35:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GDYLN23063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:34:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GDY6t22985 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:34:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2GDXvR08314 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:33:57 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:33 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. 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: JP wrote: > We're talking about the bear pit at the YC. There *isn't* a stronger > game in the UK except perhaps for the National Pairs Final, and that'll > be close. If you go down to 'The Wood' today your bears may find it no picnic in the £5/10 games, but I agree the YC is about as strong as the dilettante's of duplicate get:-) Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 17 00:36:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GDYDC23021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:34:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GDY6t22984 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:34:07 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2GDXui08281 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:33:56 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:33 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style 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: <200103160239.SAA13271@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam Irvine wrote: > But I had to laugh when I read the above---it really gets on my nerves > when I read an appeal case where a normal error, the kind I make all > the time, is considered an "irrational" play. When the Laws use the > term "irrational" in the section on claims, they make it clear that > plays that are merely "careless" or "inferior" don't qualify. If, on > the hand in question, South had made an (atrocious) claim, and we were > going over all the possible lines to see what the result would have > been, I guarantee you that ruffing high would *not* be considered an > "irrational" play---merely careless or inferior. There are several players at my local club where I would rule such a play irrational - they just wouldn't do it. Because they wouldn't do it we don't have to worry about whether we rule it an egregious error at the table. Any player who makes such an error is clearly in the class of those for whom it is careless (there are plenty of those at the club as well). Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 17 00:37:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GDbiH24228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:37:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GDbbt24190 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:37:38 +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 f2GDbX837338 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:37:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010316082238.00b8b970@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 Mar 2001 08:37:31 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314113655.00b80ee0@127.0.0.1> <3AAEA0A9.611F5026@hotmail.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010315111651.00b93430@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 05:18 PM 3/15/01, Roger wrote: >If I have this straight, let's say 4H was the last making contract >[without >delicate play : )] and there was an infraction in 4S. The damage was that >Meckwell were unable to declare in 4H. Well, how were they damaged >if they >thought they were making 5H- they bid it didn't they? They were damaged by scoring -50 in 5H instead of +420 in 4H. >If 4S is going down and Meckwell's 5H is going down, why is Meckwell >bidding >5H unless they believe it will be a better score than 4S? They misjudged the hand. >Well, they >believed the indicated capacity of the hand was 5H and they were wrong, >where is the connection to the damage caused by 4S? It was gone once >Meckwell made the mistake of 5H. Why should 5H be rolled back to 4H? Because their misjudgment was not an "egregious error", therefore they are entitled to the same ruling they would have gotten had 5H had no play. >It >does not make sense to me. However, the odds heavily favor defeating >4S or >4SX and the connection to the infraction would still be there so this >would >make sense to roll back to 4H. Whether an error is "egregious" has nothing to do with how costly it turns out to be in the end. That only affects whether an egregious error, once made, is a factor in the adjustment. >Let me pose a question. > >Let's say that there was no UI. Would there be any question as to >requiring >the result to stand? I should think not, that is playing bridge. As >far as >remedies for UI infractions, shouldn't equity be based on the likely >result[s] absent the UI? Yes. And absent the UI, we know exactly what the result would have been: 4H (absent the infraction 4H would have been passed out) for +420 (if Rodwell couldn't find the squeeze for his contract in 5H it is wildly unlikely that he'd have found it for an overtrick in 4H). WTP? Roger's line of argument is exactly what we've been seeing from ACBL ACs: The NOS was handed an opportunity to beat equity but failed to do so, therefore they get no adjustment. No need for a finding of "egregious", indeed, no need for a finding of "error". Nothing more than a determination that "they could have done better (than the complement of the adjusted score for the OS) but didn't". 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 Mar 17 01:17:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GEH2908231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:17:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GEGst08188 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:16:55 +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 f2GEGoc34651 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:16:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010316085426.00abdee0@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 Mar 2001 09:15:46 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@127.0.0.1> <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:25 PM 3/15/01, David wrote: > If it were illegal to mislead your oppos to your suit lengths when >following suits then false-carding would be illegal, yes? My fault, my analogy wasn't clear. I didn't mean a particular false-card played with a specific intent to mislead. That would be analogous to a psyche. I meant the general practice of following suit with random irrelevant spot cards rather than always playing your lowest, which we (incorrectly) call "false"-carding only because an opponent is likely to draw false inferences if they implicitly assume that you aren't a good enough player to understand that that's what good players do despite your having properly disclosed to them that you do it. This is analogous to playing the random minor. If it were illegal to "mislead" (as David is using the term) your opponents as to your suit length when following suit, you would be permitted to play any card but would be required to tell them your suit length. In bridge, the only minimum standard for what the opponents are entitled to know about your hand (beyond what they can deduce from their own hands) is what your partner knows (or would know if he remembered your agreements). 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 Mar 17 01:26:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GEQGr11465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:26:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GEQ8t11425 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:26:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14dvB7-0005hL-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:26:05 +0000 Message-ID: <4e1KuWAcIis6EwX+@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:24:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst writes > >>It is a method whereby one does not need to tell the opponents which >>minor is held on balanced hands, so as to stay level with the field. >>There's no destructive element involved. Just an element of concealment > > How do you reconcile the above statement with the one below? > >>With full disclosure OB 9.1.4 doesn't get a look in. "... primary >>purpose to deceive intentionally ...". Relax David, it's legal, and is >>so at level 2. > > I know there is full disclosure, but if the full disclosure is that >when we open 1C or 1D we choose in a way that intentionally hides the >suit lengths, why is it legal? > Because the primary purpose is not "to deceive intentionally", but to conceal. The random minor contains "no information" rather than "deceptive information" -- 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 Mar 17 01:34:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GEYJ314297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:34:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GEYCt14258 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:34:12 +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 14dvIu-0009PS-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:34:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:32:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010316114342.00829100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002001c0ae14$455437a0$25fa7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <002001c0ae14$455437a0$25fa7ad5@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 <002001c0ae14$455437a0$25fa7ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes David, an excellent point, and one that concerns me. > >The trouble with these methods is that it really is not possible to play >them ethically, however hard you try. I assure you that whatever >algorithm you use, however efficient you are at applying it, and however >good you are at making bids in an even tempo without expression, I or >any other expert blessed with an ounce of table presence will *know* >beyond shadow of doubt when you are opening a minor naturally and when >you are using your algorithm. And if I, your opponent, know it - what >might I your partner know? If this is the case then you, my partner, has to say "John, we can no longer play this as your tempo is a give-away" I do stand by my own experience where I have a [parity check] / [algorithm execution completed] on a hand by the time I've inspected it. Most of the time I have no use for it, but I do it while I'm counting my points, shape, losers and whatever. To me it's just an item of information about the hand. Were I to apply this to random minor I think I'd be in tempo. Perhaps we should try an experiment some time. > >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 Sat Mar 17 01:43:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GEh2i17339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:43:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GEgst17300 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:42:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2GEgl516800 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:42:47 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:42 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. 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: > >Yet you seem to be very dismissive of those whose opinions differ > >from your current (incompletely formed) position. Why is it so > >obvious that attempting to conceal something from partner and > >opponents must mean your motives are to deceive/mislead. > > What other purpose is there? If you bid your longer minor your slam > bidding in the minors will be better, not much, true, but it will. So > what purpose is there in concealing your minor length? It is to hide > your minor length from opponents. It is indeed, but at the cost of hiding the information from partner as well. Consider a premise such as "A perfect bidding system will conceal information about your hand that is expected to be more useful to your opponents than to your partner." I believe a number of relay systems use such a premise in their design. Add in a hypothesis "Showing relative minor suit lengths on balanced hands breaks the premise above." A player wishes to test the hypothesis and designs a bidding system accordingly. Many of us consider that a primary purpose of "concealing information from partner and opponents" is very different to "attempting to deceive opponents". Personally I would wish to hear the explanation that would be given of a 1m call. I think a poor explanation could easily push me towards your viewpoint (of course that applies to many otherwise legal systems). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 17 01:59:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GExFu22996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:59:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f2GEx8t22959 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:59:08 +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 f2GEx3s22437 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:59:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010316092247.00b88260@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 Mar 2001 09:59:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <006e01c0adbd$ae6431c0$104d063e@dodona> References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314091928.00b80230@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010315091334.00a9d1f0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:27 PM 3/15/01, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I am a little doubtful as to the meaning here >of 'Kaplan Doctrine'. Edgar did not intend 12C2 to >be an instrument for the punishment of an offence, >but a mechanical procedure for restoring any lost >equity following an irregularity. Because of the way >it works, many have come to see it as punishing. >Law 12C3 is for those who do not believe that >what is achieved by that kind of algorithmic >approach is equity, and who wish to proceed by >way of bridge judgement in the hands ultimately >of appeals committees. By "Kaplan doctrine" I mean the principle that the NOS's commission of an "egregious error" (or meeting some similar standard, such as "wild, gambling or irrational action") may lead to an adjudicated result other than "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". In other words, the principle that a NOS may do something subsequent to an opponent's infraction that, in Kaplan's words, "breaks the connection between the infraction and the damage". > In the WBF we have a mix of people brought >up in very different bridge climes; we are doing >our best to find ground on which we can work >together for stability and consistency, and to >overcome the volatility inherent in the conflicts >of our widely differing mores. We have not >arrived in Valhalla, and probably we never will, >but the CoP is devised to help us on the way to >Asgard. Alas, 'long is the way and hard, that out >of hell leads up to light'. To reach a Valhalla in which we all rule the game the same way, we would have to do away with the L12C3 Zonal option. I'm asking whether the acceptance of L12C3 is a prerequisite prior step in order for "the CoP" (which I use here to mean the particular provision of the CoP under discussion) to take us any closer to that Valhalla. It looks to me like absent L12C3 it does nothing, as it is superceded by the requirements of TF L12C3-less LB. > The 'position of the WBF' is that we have >adopted the CoP, but being human, frail and of >uncertain understanding, as yet we are by no >means sure-footed and confident in the >practice. Yet we try, we try.~ Grattan ~ +=+ Understood. The stated position of the WBF is that they recommend that NCBOs put the CoP into effect. My question is whether L12C3 must be enabled for an NCBO in order for the adoption of the CoP to put it into effect, i.e. whether it would otherwise remain ineffective as contrary to law. If, as David B. suggests, its legality rests on L12C3, it would be illegal and void where L12C3 has been voided. Does the WBF officially agree or disagree with that? 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 Mar 17 02:26:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GFQUa02676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:26:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GFQNt02636 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:26:23 +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 f2GFQJ844314 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:26:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010316100241.00b973d0@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 Mar 2001 10:26:17 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again In-Reply-To: <006f01c0adbd$afac4220$104d063e@dodona> References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:05 PM 3/15/01, Grattan wrote: >Grattan Endicott <==--==> >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson > > >infraction and damage. > > >- One definition included "wild, gambling > > > or irrational". > > > > > >- The EBU changed that definition to > > > "Wild or Gambling". > > > > That is not true. The WBF, EK and other > > authorities decided on "wild or gambling" > > and that was the standard for many years. > > Recently the WBF decided to amend this > > definition but the EBU did not accept the > > current change. > >+=+ It was EK who started the hunt for >words that would raise high the threshold >over which to pass before restricting the >redress given to the NOS. He alleged that >in the ACBL the use of 'egregious' had >led to an excessive dilution of the meaning >we had all intended by 'wild and gambling'. I thought that was "wild or gambling" (as quoted above)... >It was under ton's leadership that we >eventually put in the word 'irrational' by >which we aimed to restore and strengthen >the barrier to easy refusal of redress. ...and had been changed to "wild, gambling or irrational" (which is what has been repeatedly cited throughout this thread). That weakens the barrier rather than strengthening it. Quite the opposite of a change from "wild and gambling" to "wild, gambling and irrational", which would strengthen it. >To >judge by some comments the intention >has not been fully realised, nor indeed >fully appreciated. If the authors wrote "or" when they meant "and", it should hardly be surprising that their intent has not been fully appreciated. >However, the link is >to the quality of the action and not to >the player's purpose. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ That works for "wild" and "irrational". But "gambling" is defined by intent perforce. ["Gamble: To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage; speculate." - AHD] 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 Mar 17 02:37:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GFbHI03124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:37:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f239.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.239]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GFbCt03120 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:37:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 07:37:05 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:37:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:37:04 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2001 15:37:05.0198 (UTC) FILETIME=[F4039CE0:01C0AE2E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: I would say only this: in a recent match against a >pair playing "random minors" depending on the parity of the total of >minor-suit spot cards, my RHO opened 1D. I overcalled 1S and my LHO >raised to 2D on a balanced six count with three diamonds to the queen - >a truly remarkable effort given that 1D could have been a three-card >suit. Of course, it wasn't a three-card suit but a five-card suit. How >did responder know this? Well, he knew what I knew - that his partner >had opened the bidding after enough time to observe that his hand >contained some high-card points and long diamonds, but not after nearly >enough time to have added up his minor-suit spot cards. > >The trouble with these methods is that it really is not possible to play >them ethically, however hard you try. I assure you that whatever >algorithm you use, however efficient you are at applying it, and however >good you are at making bids in an even tempo without expression, I or >any other expert blessed with an ounce of table presence will *know* >beyond shadow of doubt when you are opening a minor naturally and when >you are using your algorithm. And if I, your opponent, know it - what >might I your partner know? > A point that I attempted to make a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for (probably unintentionally) clarifying it, with a recent anecdote from real life, no less! _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mar 17 02:47:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GFl7903158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:47:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f143.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GFl2t03153 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:47:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 07:46:55 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:46:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:46:54 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2001 15:46:55.0123 (UTC) FILETIME=[53A30630:01C0AE30] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > >The trouble with these methods is that it really is not possible to play > >them ethically, however hard you try. I assure you that whatever > >algorithm you use, however efficient you are at applying it, and however > >good you are at making bids in an even tempo without expression, I or > >any other expert blessed with an ounce of table presence will *know* > >beyond shadow of doubt when you are opening a minor naturally and when > >you are using your algorithm. And if I, your opponent, know it - what > >might I your partner know? John Probst wrote: >If this is the case then you, my partner, has to say "John, we can no >longer play this as your tempo is a give-away" Fairyland. No disrespect, but you are living in Fairyland, on a fairly long lease, by the look of it. This is obviously not what happened at the table, nor would it ever be. It's not where these people are coming from, it's not what they want to do. >I do stand by my own experience where I have a [parity check] / >[algorithm execution completed] on a hand by the time I've inspected it. >Most of the time I have no use for it, but I do it while I'm counting my >points, shape, losers and whatever. To me it's just an item of >information about the hand. Were I to apply this to random minor I >think I'd be in tempo. Perhaps we should try an experiment some time. Again, with respect, a total red herring. How quickly you personally count your points and sort your hand is irrelevant to whether it's possible to play random minors ethically. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mar 17 03:45:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GGj6p16164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 03:45:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GGivt16127 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 03:44:58 +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 14dxLR-000B2Y-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:44:53 +0000 Message-ID: <047pHtAmKks6Ew0Q@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:43:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. 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 , Norman Scorbie writes >David Burn wrote: >> >The trouble with these methods is that it really is not possible to play >> >them ethically, however hard you try. I assure you that whatever >> >algorithm you use, however efficient you are at applying it, and however >> >good you are at making bids in an even tempo without expression, I or >> >any other expert blessed with an ounce of table presence will *know* >> >beyond shadow of doubt when you are opening a minor naturally and when >> >you are using your algorithm. And if I, your opponent, know it - what >> >might I your partner know? >John Probst wrote: >>If this is the case then you, my partner, has to say "John, we can no >>longer play this as your tempo is a give-away" > >Fairyland. No disrespect, but you are living in Fairyland, on a fairly long >lease, by the look of it. This is obviously not what happened at the table, >nor would it ever be. It's not where these people are coming from, it's not >what they want to do. You are entirely wrong with respect to Alf and the partners he plays with. He is a born experimenter and would not want to play this method if he thought it created an ethical problem, which is why he has asked me about it. > > >>I do stand by my own experience where I have a [parity check] / >>[algorithm execution completed] on a hand by the time I've inspected it. >>Most of the time I have no use for it, but I do it while I'm counting my >>points, shape, losers and whatever. To me it's just an item of >>information about the hand. Were I to apply this to random minor I >>think I'd be in tempo. Perhaps we should try an experiment some time. > >Again, with respect, a total red herring. How quickly you personally count >your points and sort your hand is irrelevant to whether it's possible to >play random minors ethically. You miss the point entirely. The process of sorting my hand "tells" me which minor to open. It's either my longest or my algorithm's depending on whether its balanced or not. I think you would be unable to detect a tempo change, as at the point when I get round to considering my bid I already "know" which minor to open if it is balanced. I have no further work to do. I kid you not. When I've finished sorting my hand I know 1) My shape 2) My points 3) Where the honours are 4) Whether I have the D7 5) A "1" or a "0" I now consider my bid. Balanced in range 1NT Balanced out of range "1" or "0" Unbalanced Longest suit No doubt you'd consider your bid. Balanced in range 1NT Balanced out of range Better Minor Unbalanced Longest suit. It takes as long to decide which minor to open when balanced using "better minor" principles as it does to use 0/1 principles. If you consider that you'd still know, then I'd reply that I'd know whether a player had a balanced hand or a suit when he opens a minor from the tempo change required to go through the options. > > >_________________________________________________________________ >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/ -- 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 Mar 17 05:42:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GIgGL23287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:42:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GIg7t23275 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:42:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14dzAn-0008bU-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:42:03 +0000 Message-ID: <9ShVWNB2Uhs6EwnE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:29:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0ad92$363a6140$cb3467c0@isi.com> In-Reply-To: <001c01c0ad92$363a6140$cb3467c0@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Willey writes >Hash: SHA1 > >This may be a silly observation... then again, it wouldn't be my >first. > >Reading this entire thread regarding random minors, I am struck that >this entire topic is [essentially] equivalent to a psychic cue bid. >Many players will, on occassion, make a cue bid during a slam action >and show a first round control in a suit that is wide open. This is >a perfectly acceptable and valid technique. > >Suppose that we can characterize the cue bidding style for one such >player. > >If this player makes a cue bid, he will hold a first round control in >the bid suit with frequency X. >The suit will be wide open with frequency (1 - X) > >In a similar fashion, it is perfectly acceptable and valid for the >Hideous Hog to psyche a 1C opening in order to try to deter a club >lead against an eventual NT contract. Here, once again, if the Hog's >behaviour can be defined we might describe his hand as showing a >standard 1C opening with frequency X and a balanced hand with primary >diamonds with frequency (1 - X). > >Assuming that we chose an equivalent probability density function, I >fail to see the difference between a style that uses random minor >opening and a pysche. Suppose I play that after a suit is agreed then a new suit shows either [a] First round control, or [b] no first or second round control That is what this thread is about. It has no comparison with a psyche because we are talking about an agreement between partners. -- 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 Mar 17 05:42:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GIgLx23289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:42:21 +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-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 f2GIg7t23276 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:42:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14dzAn-0008bV-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:42:04 +0000 Message-ID: <4S3U2QBuWhs6Ewn5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:31:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0ad92$363a6140$cb3467c0@isi.com> <3.0.6.32.20010316114342.00829100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010316114342.00829100@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 15:55 15/03/01 -0500, Richard Willey wrote: >> >>Assuming that we chose an equivalent probability density function, I >>fail to see the difference between a style that uses random minor >>opening and a pysche. > >AG : there is but one : the 1C/1D opening is not a psyche, since it defined >as ambiguous (thus is not made in full ignorance from partner). But the >reasoning serves at least one purpose : random minor openings have about >the same effects as occasional psyches in well-defined situations. Since >the latter are allowed, the former must be. Why? You may psyche therefore Blackwood is legal? I do not see the connection between the legality of psyches [given by Law] and the regulation of conventions [a right given to SOs also by Law]. -- 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 Mar 17 05:42:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GIgLX23288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:42:21 +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-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 f2GIg8t23277 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:42:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14dzAo-0008bW-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:42:05 +0000 Message-ID: <2SXX2UBuZhs6EwHe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:34:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. 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 Kent writes >To take the Precision analogy 1 step further. Many time a Precision auction >will go 1M-4M. 4M shows either a good hand with no slam interest with as >few as 3 card support or a preemptive hand with usually 5+ card support. >That is not to say that they may not play in 4M when 6 is cold. The reason >for doing so is so that the opponents have the opportunity to make a >mistake, either by bidding when they should be passing, passing when they >should be bidding, or since so little information has be relayed they may >make an inferior opening lead. Maybe this costs them in their constructive >bidding 5% of the time, they gain 10% of the time and it does not matter 85% >of the time. > >Similarly, playing random minors, opening balanced hands with a random minor >gains 15%, loses 10% and makes no difference 75%. Needless to say, these >numbers are completely arbitrary. The point is that the pair has made a >conscious decision to take the constructive bidding 'hit' in order that it >puts more pressure on the opponents to make a mistake. > >Perhaps at the level at which this 'random minor' pair plays, their strategy >is a winning ploy. Maybe by moving to another level, their losses stay the >same but their gains go down since the opponents will make fewer mistakes. >Maybe they will change their system because of this. However, this should >be their decision, not a TD who says that they should not be able to play >their system since they cannot show that it improves constructive bidding. >Clearly it does not, but nor is that the objective. The question is not what a TD decides, but whether the SO permits it. No doubt every pair plays what they consider to be the winning approach but that does not make it legal either. The regulation has already been quoted, and to be legal it must not fall foul of the regulation. -- 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 Mar 17 05:42:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GIgWk23295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:42:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2GIgOt23291 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 05:42:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14dzAt-0008bV-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:42:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:00:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313114555.00b8cc80@127.0.0.1> <3AAF7775.F3471154@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314171301.00b892c0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314171301.00b892c0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >That is exactly the debate I thought David S. might be trying to start: >is "equity" fixed for a given hand, or does it change for the NOS when >their opponents commit an infraction? I think that is the vital question, and I am not sure it has been answered. My correspondent has now sent me the other hand, so have a look: Summary of problem Tandem Swiss Teams 6/1/01- Dealer & Vul irrelevant West is declarer in 4S - lead CA West East S K Q J 10 9 S x x x x H A K Q J 10 H x x x D x x D A K C x C x x x x Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a winning club at trick 13. How do you rule? -- 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 Mar 17 06:36:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GJZmH24894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 06:35:48 +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-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 f2GJZdt24884 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 06:35:40 +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 f2GJZZx87122 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:35:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010316142807.00b8dd10@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 Mar 2001 14:35:33 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314171301.00b892c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010313114555.00b8cc80@127.0.0.1> <3AAF7775.F3471154@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314171301.00b892c0@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 09:00 AM 3/16/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >That is exactly the debate I thought David S. might be trying to start: > >is "equity" fixed for a given hand, or does it change for the NOS when > >their opponents commit an infraction? > > I think that is the vital question, and I am not sure it has been >answered. My correspondent has now sent me the other hand, so have a >look: > >Summary of problem > >Tandem Swiss Teams 6/1/01- Dealer & Vul irrelevant > >West is declarer in 4S - lead CA > > West East > S K Q J 10 9 S x x x x > H A K Q J 10 H x x x > D x x D A K > C x C x x x x > >Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA >and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now >draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a >winning club at trick 13. > > How do you rule? Given the original problem slightly modified to eliminate the issue of the possible H9 unblock, this is the same legal situation. So, although I don't know the answer (I am hopeful that this thread will ultimately provide it), the answer is... if you gave three out of five tricks earlier you must now give 10, and if you gave two out of five earlier you must now give nine. 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 Mar 17 06:57:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GJv2125774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 06:57:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GJust25766 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 06:56:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA26594 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA15547 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:56:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:56:50 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103161956.OAA15547@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > West is declarer in 4S - lead CA > West East > S K Q J 10 9 S x x x x > H A K Q J 10 H x x x > D x x D A K > C x C x x x x > > Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA > and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now > draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a > winning club at trick 13. Interesting hand. The "normal penalty" ruling is 12 tricks for declarer less two tricks penalty = 10 tricks. (I'm assuming trumps broke 3-2.) Equity before the first revoke is 11 tricks, so L64C doesn't affect the score for the first revoke. At the moment of the second revoke, the defenders have one trick in, and the position is: KQJ xxx AKQJT xxx xx AK x xxx South has just led a club, which either he or his partner is entitled to win. Equity is thus the club plus the S-A already won, plus the two trick revoke penalty already owed because declarer won the revoke trick, thus nine tricks for declarer. So apply L64C to the second revoke: 9 tricks for declarer. This looks like a good problem for a TD course. I hope no one would give 10 tricks. If you do, you are allowing declarer to benefit from the second revoke. That can't be right. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 17 06:57:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GJup725761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 06:56:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.wrs.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GJuft25750 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 06:56:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA08827 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:56:14 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] random minors. Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:57:47 -0500 Message-ID: <002001c0ae53$5fca83c0$7d04e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <9ShVWNB2Uhs6EwnE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Suppose I play that after a suit is agreed then a new suit shows > either > > [a] First round control, or > [b] no first or second round control > > That is what this thread is about. It has no comparison > with a psyche because we are talking about an agreement between > partners. Suppose that I am lucky enough to be playing with Zia. Zia makes a cuebid during a slam auction. By agreement, his bid means that he has first round control in the suit bid. In practice, everyone at the table knows that Zia may be pysching with the suit wide open. Furthermore, we have all studied Zia well enough to know that he makes this psyche 1 out of every 20 times. Compare that will the following situation: Partner and I agree that a cue bid has the following explictly defined meaning: A cue bid shows: [a] First round control of a suit with 95% probability [b] no first or second round control with 5% probability Tell me how these two situations are different. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOrJwO7FdMFbo8dHHEQL6nACgg5MxSBZlYyo/Bh3/4XQwLV968MMAn30f Nz06vTW7uMM3TifYedRHRvjd =4kMI -----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 Mar 17 07:38:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GKbIY27421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 07:37:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GKbAt27412 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 07:37:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-31-196.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.31.196]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2GKaZv21881; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:36:35 GMT Message-ID: <000d01c0ae58$f4e24b00$c41f7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: References: <200103160239.SAA13271@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:34:57 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "it is better to live quietly under some degree of misrepresentation than to attempt to remove it by the uncertain process of letter-writing." - Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Cc: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style > -------------- \x/ ------------------- > But I had to laugh when I read the above---it really gets on my nerves when I read an appeal case where a normal error, the kind I make all the time, is considered an "irrational" play. When the Laws use the term "irrational" in the section on claims, they make it clear that plays that are merely "careless" or "inferior" don't qualify. If, on the hand in question, South had made an (atrocious) claim, and we were going over all the possible lines to see what the result would have been, I guarantee you that ruffing high would *not* be considered an > "irrational" play---merely careless or inferior. I'm not saying that the CoP use of "irrational" must encompass exactly the same plays as the claim laws do; however, the same English word is being used, and it doesn't make sense that there could be a very wide chasm between the meanings in the two cases. > > To me, "irrational" connotes that something was done without > any reason at all, and most errors just don't qualify. Even > when I make an error I'd later consider "egregious", I generally > have some reason why I'm doing it, although my reasons are > generally based on incomplete thinking or carelessness (or > caffeine deficiency). So I think that even those errors > shouldn't be considered "irrational", by any common definition > of the term. > > On the other hand, all my partner's errors, even when he > misguesses a two-way finesse for a queen, are irrational, at > least until the end of the post-mortem(*). Maybe the > Directors and Committees are guilty of applying the same > kind of standard: if a bid or play is one that would cause the > Director or Committee member to refer to his or her regular > partner (or spouse) as a Blithering Idiot after the hand, > why then, it must be irrational. Anyway, if I can't come up > with a consistent definition of "irrational" even for my own > use, perhaps the term is just too subjective and should be > eliminated. Perhaps that's why the EBU decided to go > with just "Wild or Gambling". > +=+ 'irrational' = utterly illogical, absurd. <> I have difficulty in understanding why there should be any doubt as to the meaning of 'irrational': the test is whether the action is beyond the bounds of reason. I admit we make it more complicated by introducing this business about the class of player involved, since I view irrationality as an absolute condition, but even so the question is one of bridge judgement to be assessed by the Director and the AC. It may be irrational to describe a partner (or spouse) as a Blithering Idiot, given the potential subsequent damage to the score. ~ 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 Mar 17 09:54:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GMreT08590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:53:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GMrRt08524 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:53:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-83-121.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.83.121]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2GMqrv23451; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:52:53 GMT Message-ID: <000301c0ae6b$ff1b8060$7953063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be><4.3.2.7.1.20010314091928.00b80230@127.0.0.1><4.3.2.7.1.20010315091334.00a9d1f0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010316092247.00b88260@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:51:03 -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 "it is better to live quietly under some degree of misrepresentation than to attempt to remove it by the uncertain process of letter-writing." - Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again > > By "Kaplan doctrine" I mean the principle that the > NOS's commission of an "egregious error" (or > meeting some similar standard, such as "wild, > gambling or irrational action") may lead to an > adjudicated result other than "the most favorable > result that was likely had the irregularity not > occurred". In other words, the principle that a > NOS may do something subsequent to an > opponent's infraction that, in Kaplan's words, > "breaks the connection between the infraction and > the damage". > +=+ I do not recall that I have ever heard amongst authority doubt cast on the doctrine that irresponsible subsequent action by the NOS may unsettle the flow of consequence from infraction to damage - and that any part of the damage that does not then result from the infraction is a matter for which the NOS is not indemnified. There do seem to be some who think that if the NOS contribute themselves to the damage they receive subsequent to the offence, they should not only be refused indemnity for that self-damage but also denied indemnity for the damage inflicted on them by the opponent. I do not know where one may seek a basis for such an argument and I believe the law intends they should continue to enjoy redress for damage done to them. The first priority of the laws is to provide redress for damage, not to punish. +=+ > > > In the WBF we have a mix of people brought > >up in very different bridge climes; we are doing > >our best to find ground on which we can work > >together for stability and consistency, and to > >overcome the volatility inherent in the conflicts > >of our widely differing mores. We have not > >arrived in Valhalla, and probably we never will, > >but the CoP is devised to help us on the way to > >Asgard. Alas, 'long is the way and hard, that out > >of hell leads up to light'. > > To reach a Valhalla in which we all rule the game > the same way, we would have to do away with the > L12C3 Zonal option. I'm asking whether the > acceptance of L12C3 is a prerequisite prior step > in order for "the CoP" (which I use here to mean > the particular provision of the CoP under discussion) > to take us any closer to that Valhalla. It looks to > me like absent L12C3 it does nothing, as it is > superceded by the requirements of TF L12C3-less LB. > > > The 'position of the WBF' is that we have > >adopted the CoP, but being human, frail and of > >uncertain understanding, as yet we are by no > >means sure-footed and confident in the > >practice. Yet we try, we try.~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Understood. The stated position of the WBF is that > they recommend that NCBOs put the CoP into effect. > My question is whether L12C3 must be enabled for > an NCBO in order for the adoption of the CoP to put > it into effect, i.e. whether it would otherwise remain > ineffective as contrary to law. If, as David B. suggests, > its legality rests on L12C3, it would be illegal and void > where L12C3 has been voided. Does the WBF officially > agree or disagree with that? > +=+ The WBF is seeking to persuade by leadership and example, not to impose since that would be a disruptive policy where we seek gradually to harmonise. For this reason there has been marked reticence on the issue of the conflicts between the By-Laws of the World Bridge Federation and the Statutes of a body such as the ACBL; no-one is thinking of pushing the bus to the edge of the canyon. For these reasons there is no approved answer to your question. ["Does the WBF officially agree or disagree with that?" "No."] However, it seems to me that de facto the ACBL, for example, may have implemented aspects of 12C3 without publicly embracing the whole. In this one might perhaps suggest the ACBL has used its 12C3 power to "specify otherwise". The WBF, for its part, welcomes any progress and, if I read the President correctly, seeks to follow the path of encouragement and patience. ~ 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 Mar 17 09:54:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GMrdH08582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:53:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GMrPt08511 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:53:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-83-121.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.83.121]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2GMqpv23425; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:52:51 GMT Message-ID: <000201c0ae6b$fdd37000$7953063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <3AACEFA2.1BB3FE83@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010316100241.00b973d0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:20:12 -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 "it is better to live quietly under some degree of misrepresentation than to attempt to remove it by the uncertain process of letter-writing." - Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again > At 09:05 PM 3/15/01, Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ It was EK who started the hunt for > >words that would raise high the threshold > >over which to pass before restricting the > >redress given to the NOS. He alleged that > >in the ACBL the use of 'egregious' had > >led to an excessive dilution of the meaning > >we had all intended by 'wild and gambling'. > > I thought that was "wild or gambling" (as quoted above)... > +#+ Yes. Apology for a careless word. Wild or gambling, which has now become 'irrational, wild or gambling'. +#+ > > > >It was under ton's leadership that we > >eventually put in the word 'irrational' by > >which we aimed to restore and strengthen > >the barrier to easy refusal of redress. > > ...and had been changed to "wild, gambling > or irrational" (which is what has been repeatedly > cited throughout this thread). That weakens > the barrier rather than strengthening it. Quite > the opposite of a change from "wild and gambling" > to "wild, gambling and irrational", which would > strengthen it. > > >To > >judge by some comments the intention > >has not been fully realised, nor indeed > >fully appreciated. > > If the authors wrote "or" when they meant "and", > it should hardly be surprising that their intent > has not been fully appreciated. > +#+ No. They said 'or' - but the intention was that the alternatives offered in this phrase should each present a higher hurdle than has been the experience with 'egregious'. The purpose was to avoid 'egregious' as one of the terms used to set the standard because it has been devalued. The exercise is to ensure that what should be regarded as inferior or careless is not treated as an excuse not to give to NOs indemnity they should have. +#+ > > >However, the link is > >to the quality of the action and not to > >the player's purpose. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > That works for "wild" and "irrational". But > "gambling" is defined by intent perforce. > ["Gamble: To take a risk in the hope of > gaining an advantage; speculate." - AHD] > +#+ What I am seeking to say is that 'gambling' here refers to the fact that the action has that quality in general, not to the purpose in the mind of the particular player involved. The intent of the player is not the crux of it, but rather the bridge judgement that in its nature the action is a gambling one. The two may be synonymous, perhaps, but there is no requirement to show intent. +#+ ~ 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 Mar 17 09:57:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GMvQY09941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:57:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GMvJt09907 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:57:19 +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 KAA07090 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 10:01:08 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:50:02 +0000 (EST) Subject: [BLML] Last Match To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:53:55 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 17/03/2001 09:54:46 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The last match of an imps event, where multiple contestants are involved, may be more meaningful to some rather than others. An extreme case of this occurred in the final match of the 1986 selection trials to determine Canberra's representative Youth Team in the Australian Interstate Youth Championship. Canberra dominated the annual Interstate Youth Teams in the 1980s, winning four gold medals, and three silver medals. So in 1986, four strong partnerships participated in the trials, to determine which three of those four pairs would form the team. The SO adopted a *routinely obvious* CoC. Six matches would be held, with imps converted to VPs on the WBF scale. For each match, a pair would get a different permutation of at-the-table opponents, and other-table team-mates. Pair X was expected to spearhead the eventual Canberra Youth Team in the Interstate Championship. They were efficiently playing a Forcing Pass Relay system. In their constructive auctions, their relays usually got them to the top spot. While when the opponents owned the hand, the systemically light FPR opening bids disrupted the other side's auctions. With one round to play, less than a match separated first from fourth. Pair X was running second. Unfortunately for them, their final round team-mates were running first (Pair Y). As a student of mathematics can easily work out, had Pair X's last round team-mates been either of the other two pairs, Pair X would have been guaranteed to make the cut. Meanwhile, my partnership was in third spot, so both my side and Pair Y were guaranteed to make the team. As luck would have it, my side and Pair Y were at-the-table opponents in the final round. If this trials was merely thought of as the first stage of the Interstate Youth Teams (rather than as a distinct, but linked tournament), then it was in the interest of my side to open 7NT on every hand, then redouble, in order to ensure that Pair X became the anchor pair that won the Interstate event for our Canberra team. Instead, my side unethically played its normal fierce game in the final match. According to some (but obviously not me), Pair Y may also have been unethical. Given that they were certain to qualify, they made the *routinely obvious* calls, and played the *routinely obvious* cards. There were these *routinely obvious* results: 1. My side scored a Pyrrhic first place in the trials; 2. Pair X missed the cut; and, 3. In the 1986 Interstate Teams, the Canberra Youth Team had its only poor result of the 1980s. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 17 10:33:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GNXB022826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 10:33:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2GNWtt22744 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 10:32:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14e3iC-0000T4-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:32:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:12:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010316124255.00823100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010316124255.00823100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >At 00:24 16/03/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> I know there is full disclosure, but if the full disclosure is that >>when we open 1C or 1D we choose in a way that intentionally hides the >>suit lengths, why is it legal? > >AG : because neither I nor you nor anyone can say it is illegal. You see, >'everything that is not clearly disallowed is allowed' is a fundamental >principle of Law. That's a new one! In England you are allowed to play methods that are permitted. So anything that is not permitted is not playable. -- 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 Mar 17 10:33:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2GNXAG22821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 10:33:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2GNWut22756 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 10:32:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14e3iC-0000T7-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:32:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:16:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <200103161125.LAA22319@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200103161125.LAA22319@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes >David writes: > >> What other purpose is there? If you bid your longer minor your slam >> bidding in the minors will be better, not much, true, but it will. So >> what purpose is there in concealing your minor length? It is to hide >> your minor length from opponents. > >[One more go from me, then I give up] > >The primary purpose of this part of the method is to conceal minor suit >lengths so that more 3NT contracts make, and the (small) price we pay >is that our slam bidding in the minors will be poorer. Why can't we >choose to pay this price? Exactly. You have explained clearly what I have been trying to get across. Now, is that primary purpose legal within the wording of 9.1.4? >> Of course, other bids conceal suits, but if that is not their prime >> reason then 9.1.4 does not affect them. The Multi is a typical case. >But noone claims that the multi mislead opponents as to major suit length. >Do you agree that the methods in question "conceal" rather than "mislead" >(or deceive)? In which case they are not covered by OB9.1.4. I agree that they conceal them but I do not see the difference between concealing some information and misleading the opponents as to that information. -- 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 Mar 17 11:08:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2H07jj26669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:07:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2H07ct26661 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:07:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00471; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:05:25 -0800 Message-Id: <200103170005.QAA00471@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:16:27 GMT." Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:05:25 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >But noone claims that the multi mislead opponents as to major suit length. > >Do you agree that the methods in question "conceal" rather than "mislead" > >(or deceive)? In which case they are not covered by OB9.1.4. > > I agree that they conceal them but I do not see the difference between > concealing some information and misleading the opponents as to that > information. I don't see why this is hard!!! If you tell the opponents "I have 3 or more clubs" when you only have two, this is misleading. If you tell the opponents "I'm not going to tell you how many clubs I have", it's concealment. Clearly two different things, no? -- 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 Mar 17 11:16:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2H0GAa26953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:16:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2H0G2t26945 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:16:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-93-194.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.93.194]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2H0FTv11112; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:15:29 GMT Message-ID: <001e01c0ae77$88f0d640$7953063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313114555.00b8cc80@127.0.0.1><3AAF7775.F3471154@village.uunet.be><4.3.2.7.1.20010314171301.00b892c0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:11:54 -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 "it is better to live quietly under some degree of misrepresentation than to attempt to remove it by the uncertain process of letter-writing." - Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke > +=+ I have not been following this thread, so I do not know the history, but my curiosity is aroused.+=+ > Eric Landau writes > > >That is exactly the debate I thought David S. might > >be trying to start: is "equity" fixed for a given hand, > > +=+ Given the example that follows, I wonder why anyone is asking about equity here.+=+ > > Summary of problem > > Tandem Swiss Teams 6/1/01- Dealer & Vul irrelevant > > West is declarer in 4S - lead CA > > West East > S K Q J 10 9 S x x x x > H A K Q J 10 H x x x > D x x D A K > C x C x x x x > > Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA > and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now > draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a > winning club at trick 13. > > How do you rule? > +=+ Does not Law 64A1 apply? Do we not transfer the first trick plus the trick containing the Ace Spades to the NOS? If so, we then check that the application of Law 64A1 has not insufficiently compensated the NOS; since it has restored the result normally to be obtained on the board we have no grounds to act under L64C. And the problem is? Where am I adrift? (Incidentally I note the word 'equity' in the heading of 64C, but this, as we know, is not considered part of the laws.) Only one other question is not the 'winning club at trick 13' actually a trump in dummy? ~ 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 Mar 17 11:32:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2H0WZ427514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:32:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2H0WSt27506 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:32:29 +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 TAA05334 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:32:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA16461 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:32:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:32:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103170032.TAA16461@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > When the Laws use the > term "irrational" in the section on claims, they make it clear that > plays that are merely "careless" or "inferior" don't qualify. Yes. > I'm not saying that > the CoP use of "irrational" must encompass exactly the same plays as > the claim laws do; however, the same English word is being used, and > it doesn't make sense that there could be a very wide chasm between > the meanings in the two cases. This is such a helpful thought that I think it bears repeating. There is an enormous gap between 'irrational' and normal bridge errors. AC's that are thinking of denying redress to a NOS should keep the distinction in mind. That said, a revoke seems to me to fall on the 'irrational' side of Adam's chasm. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 17 11:34:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2H0Ynw27576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:34:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2H0Yht27572 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:34:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-69-29.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.69.29]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2H0Y9v19454; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:34:10 GMT Message-ID: <003001c0ae7a$24ec8f60$7953063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]><200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010316124255.00823100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:33:59 -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 "it is better to live quietly under some degree of misrepresentation than to attempt to remove it by the uncertain process of letter-writing." - Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > In England you are allowed to play methods > that are permitted. So anything that is not > permitted is not playable. > +=+ How excellent to find the English adopting the worldwide interpretation of the laws mandated by the WBFLC in its minutes of 24th August 1998. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 17 13:45:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2H2haX05277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 13:43:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2H2hTt05244 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 13:43:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.49.82] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14e6ge-0004XB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:43:25 +0000 Message-ID: <006001c0ae8b$e673a680$52317ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <047pHtAmKks6Ew0Q@asimere.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:41:45 -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: > If this is the case then you, my partner, has to say "John, we can no > longer play this as your tempo is a give-away" No, I don't. Rather, the SO has to say (as the WBF has said in the case of encrypted signals, and as Bob Hamman has said in the case of Smith Peters): "Anyone who uses these methods is bound to cheat, for they will simply be unable to help themselves. So, we will not allow these methods." I reproduce below an extract from Victor Mollo's classic work "Bridge in the Menagerie", in order to indicate that there is nothing new under the sun. I have abridged the relevant episode somewhat. KJ73 AJ93 J84 32 952 64 Q764 52 AQ10 K653 A106 QJ984 AQ103 K108 972 K73 West North East South Papa RR NP HH 1D Pass 1S Pass 1NT Pass 2H Pass 2NT Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass For the benefit of the uninitiated, who fail to subordinate lesser considerations to the supreme task of playing the hand, it should be explained that one diamond is a Prepared Bid for South on the Hog System. The intention is as ever to end up in no trumps, and the first step in this direction is to dissuade the defence from attacking diamonds. "You play the weakest minor, of course?" is an expression often heard when Hog cuts Hog. [Papa leads a spade against 3NT, then discards a heart on the fourth spade, whereupon HH gets the hearts right because Papa would not discard one if he didn't have the queen. HH cashes hearts, discarding a club, and exits with a diamond; Papa works out that HH "must" have come down to a stiff club, so plays CA and another.] >From time to time, of course, the Hog technique leads to serious setbacks. Bewildered and bemused, the Rabbit believes no bid he hears in diamonds or in clubs. In defence, since he cannot lead the Hog's favourite no trumps, he rarely knows what to do. The Hog brushes aside all such objections by pointing out that the Rabbit does not know what to do anyway, so that the price to pay for adding to his confusion is in no way exorbitant. 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 Mar 17 14:01:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2H314X11658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:01:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.northrock.bm (mx.northrock.bm [209.27.140.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2H30qt11593 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:00:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [216.249.33.98] ([216.249.33.98]) by mx.northrock.bm (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2H30nA10512 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:00:49 -0400 (AST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:01:07 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Address Change From: "Jack A. Rhind" To: Message-ID: 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 Please change my email from jrhind@ibl.bm to jrhind@therock.bm Regards, Jack Rhind -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 17 21:07:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2HA6Eh28335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:06:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mirapoint.inter.net.il (mirapoint.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2HA65t28326 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:06:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-7-130.inter.net.il [213.8.7.130]) by mirapoint.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AMA63093; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:05:19 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AB3386F.9442E63@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:11:59 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103161956.OAA15547@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear Steve Very simple :I decide for 10 tricks !!! no fear (I don't like to say "no doubt"): 12 tricks won and 2 back for the winning revoke. You can't even "think" for any penalty or redress for the second revoke: please read L64B2. Nor you can use Law 64C : this law is to empower the TD and AC to restore equity when "the result obtained by the revoke and the subsequent tricks could never been reached by any legal play" or "compeled the declarer to play a line which brought him to another disaster" . [A dumb example : opps playing in 6Sp and you lead a club , Declarer plays the A from dummy(with Axxx and xxx in hand , having a long Diam in dummy and sing diam in hand, to discard the other clubs) , I ruff (with 2 small clubs ) and when you get the hand with A spade cash the KQ club....Now we got 4 tricks , redressing is still one down - we can never get this result if I don't revoke] I think it is not a difficult case if by the written laws and according to the spirit of laws and my Law 0, if you remember : "the laws exist to help the flavor of play , not to harness the players to the Laws...". Dany Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > West is declarer in 4S - lead CA > > West East > > S K Q J 10 9 S x x x x > > H A K Q J 10 H x x x > > D x x D A K > > C x C x x x x > > > > Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA > > and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now > > draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a > > winning club at trick 13. > > Interesting hand. The "normal penalty" ruling is 12 tricks for declarer > less two tricks penalty = 10 tricks. (I'm assuming trumps broke 3-2.) > > Equity before the first revoke is 11 tricks, so L64C doesn't affect the > score for the first revoke. > > At the moment of the second revoke, the defenders have one trick in, and > the position is: > KQJ xxx > AKQJT xxx > xx AK > x xxx > > South has just led a club, which either he or his partner is entitled to > win. Equity is thus the club plus the S-A already won, plus the two > trick revoke penalty already owed because declarer won the revoke > trick, thus nine tricks for declarer. So apply L64C to the second > revoke: 9 tricks for declarer. > > This looks like a good problem for a TD course. I hope no one would > give 10 tricks. If you do, you are allowing declarer to benefit from > the second revoke. That can't be right. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 18 02:45:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2HFhie15609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:43:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2HFhat15605 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:43:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-18-155.easynet.co.uk [212.134.224.155]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A0BD2538BF for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:43:30 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] RE: Second Revoke Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:41:30 -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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was South on the hand in question and submitted the hand to DWS. >Grattan Endicott writes: >Only one other question is not the 'winning club at trick 13' actually a trump in dummy? Sorry, there wasn't a trump left at trick 13, perhaps the hands were in fact: West East S K Q J 10 9 S x x x H A K Q J 10 H x x x D x x D A K C x C x x x x x This does not, of course, effect the issue. The outcome of the hand was: TDs ruling at table: 4S tick. (Laws 64A1 & 64B2: 12 tricks made less 2 trick penalty). AC ruling: amended to 4S-1 (Law 64C: the position if the second revoke had not occurred) Steve Willner writes: >This looks like a good problem for a TD course. I hope no one would >give 10 tricks. If you do, you are allowing declarer to benefit from >the second revoke. That can't be right. That apart, no one else so far appears to think much of the AC ruling, so perhaps I can now add my own views: Law 64C is not worded very well ( I have previously crossed swords with Max Bavin on this one). The phrase "...the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated ...for the damage caused." is capable of different interpretations. The EBL Commentary on the Laws (64.8), however, uses the phrase "should aim to restore... in line with expectations as they were immediately prior to the revoke." This is, I think, a much clearer concept. I see no reason not to treat the revokes as separate infringements. I agree that it is not intended that a second revoke in the same suit should incur a further penalty, but I don't believe it is intended that a trick should be gained thereby either. If declarer follows suit at trick 3 her contract is immediately one off. Her second revoke clearly damages NS who appear to have redress under Law 64C which specifically covers revokes "including those not subject to penalty". If despite all of the foregoing it is felt that NS are not entitled to redress under Law 64C , then they surely have an unarguable case under Law 72B1. The key requirements are that declarer "could have known ... that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side" and that "the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity". I would have thought that at trick 3 it was clear that declarer "could have known ...etc". Since she is now a trick better off, it is also patently obvious that EW have "gained an advantage through the irregularity". Declarer's mistake at trick 1 has cost her dearly, as revokes often do. Once established by her lead at trick 2, the revoke has converted 4S+1 to 4S-1. By trick 3, however, all of this is in the past. If the original ruling is right, declarer is effectively being told: "Obey the rules, follow suit and you will be one off. If, however, through carelessness, inattention or otherwise you revoke again at trick 3, we will award you the contract." Not only do I believe that this is manifestly absurd, but that it contravenes the very essence of the intended scope of the Laws. Chas Fellows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 18 02:47:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2HFkuZ15636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:46:56 +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 f2HFkft15618 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:46:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-9.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.9]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2HFkZi29286 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:46:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AB342E4.EDB47AC8@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:56:36 +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] random minors. References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010316124255.00823100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > alain gottcheiner writes > >At 00:24 16/03/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> I know there is full disclosure, but if the full disclosure is that > >>when we open 1C or 1D we choose in a way that intentionally hides the > >>suit lengths, why is it legal? > > > >AG : because neither I nor you nor anyone can say it is illegal. You see, > >'everything that is not clearly disallowed is allowed' is a fundamental > >principle of Law. > > That's a new one! > > In England you are allowed to play methods that are permitted. So > anything that is not permitted is not playable. > Sorry David, but Alain was talking more generally. Anything that is not prohibited is permitted. Your analogy to permitted systems is flawed, since every systems policy has an attempt to classify ALL systems. Then, everything that is not permitted is prohibited and vice versa. But that practice is not Laws-wide. The Laws do not state that you are not allowed to drink at the table, so you are allowed to drink. -- 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 Mar 18 02:47:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2HFkul15637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:46:56 +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 f2HFkgt15620 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:46:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-9.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.9]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2HFkci29290 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:46:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AB343F0.62C2D529@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:01:04 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <002001c0ae53$5fca83c0$7d04e080@isi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Suppose I play that after a suit is agreed then a new suit shows > > either > > > > [a] First round control, or > > [b] no first or second round control > > > > That is what this thread is about. It has no comparison > > with a psyche because we are talking about an agreement between > > partners. > > Suppose that I am lucky enough to be playing with Zia. > > Zia makes a cuebid during a slam auction. > By agreement, his bid means that he has first round control in the > suit bid. > In practice, everyone at the table knows that Zia may be pysching > with the suit wide open. > Furthermore, we have all studied Zia well enough to know that he > makes this psyche > 1 out of every 20 times. > > Compare that will the following situation: > > Partner and I agree that a cue bid has the following explictly > defined meaning: > > A cue bid shows: > > [a] First round control of a suit with 95% probability > [b] no first or second round control with 5% probability > > Tell me how these two situations are different. > They are not, except for one little detail. In the first example, the opponents already know, and so you could be forgiven for not telling them. But in either case it is imperative that opponents know about the 5% possibility. -- 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 Mar 18 02:47:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2HFkxJ15638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:46:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2HFkit15621 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:46:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-9.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.9]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2HFkei29295 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:46:40 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AB345F6.8926BA1A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:09:42 +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] Double revoke References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313114555.00b8cc80@127.0.0.1> <3AAF7775.F3471154@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314171301.00b892c0@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 David Stevenson wrote: > > > Summary of problem > > Tandem Swiss Teams 6/1/01- Dealer & Vul irrelevant > > West is declarer in 4S - lead CA > > West East > S K Q J 10 9 S x x x x > H A K Q J 10 H x x x > D x x D A K > C x C x x x x > equity position before play : 11 tricks. > Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), equity position after first revoke : still 11 tricks, minus two penalty tricks = 9. > leads a spade to South's SA EP: still 9. > club return suppose declarer now notices - can he escape? no he cannot. he should now follow suit, and make all other tricks, that's 11, minus 2 = EP: still 9. > and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). which will not be punished. Declarer will now still be making 11 tricks (having to give up another club - except that defenders are now thoroughly certain that there is no club loser, so declarer makes 12. > She now > draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a > winning club at trick 13. > 12 tricks - minus 2 = 10. However, since the penalty for the second revoke is nil, L64C kicks in and we award 9 tricks. > How do you rule? > 4Sp-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 Sun Mar 18 02:47:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2HFl2j15639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:47:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2HFkkt15629 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:46:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-9.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.9]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2HFkgi29300 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:46:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3AB34774.A851C3C1@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:16:04 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103161956.OAA15547@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3AB3386F.9442E63@inter.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry Dany, Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Dear Steve > > Very simple :I decide for 10 tricks !!! no fear (I don't like to say "no > doubt"): 12 tricks won and 2 back for the winning revoke. > > You can't even "think" for any penalty or redress for the second revoke: > please read L64B2. > and read L64C - when a penalty is insufficient, ... The 0-trick penalty for the revoke is insufficient. > Nor you can use Law 64C : this law is to empower the TD and AC to restore > equity when "the result obtained by the revoke and the subsequent tricks could > never been reached by any legal play" or "compeled the declarer to play a > line which brought him to another disaster" . > What gives you that idea ? The purpose is not to let offenders benefit from revokes, even after paying the penalty. > [A dumb example : opps playing in 6Sp and you lead a club , Declarer plays the > A from dummy(with Axxx and xxx in hand , having a long Diam in dummy and sing > diam in hand, to discard the other clubs) , I ruff (with 2 small clubs ) and > when you get the hand with A spade cash the KQ club....Now we got 4 tricks , > redressing is still one down - we can never get this result if I don't revoke] > > I think it is not a difficult case if by the written laws and according to the > spirit of laws and my Law 0, if you remember : "the laws exist to help the > flavor of play , not to harness the players to the Laws...". > I agree when you believe the second revoke is unintentional, but someone who would do it intentionally could never be caught, could he. It is silly to apply L64C only to some "absolute equity". Both sides could have done outrageously bad things before the first revoke, and yet we apply the equity position from that point on. Then why not ahead of the second revoke. Really. How many tricks would declarer have made had he followed suit to the second club trick : 9. How many tricks are you giving him after his revoke : 10. Surely you see that you are in error. > Dany > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: David Stevenson > > > West is declarer in 4S - lead CA > > > West East > > > S K Q J 10 9 S x x x x > > > H A K Q J 10 H x x x > > > D x x D A K > > > C x C x x x x > > > > > > Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA > > > and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now > > > draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a > > > winning club at trick 13. > > > > Interesting hand. The "normal penalty" ruling is 12 tricks for declarer > > less two tricks penalty = 10 tricks. (I'm assuming trumps broke 3-2.) > > > > Equity before the first revoke is 11 tricks, so L64C doesn't affect the > > score for the first revoke. > > > > At the moment of the second revoke, the defenders have one trick in, and > > the position is: > > KQJ xxx > > AKQJT xxx > > xx AK > > x xxx > > > > South has just led a club, which either he or his partner is entitled to > > win. Equity is thus the club plus the S-A already won, plus the two > > trick revoke penalty already owed because declarer won the revoke > > trick, thus nine tricks for declarer. So apply L64C to the second > > revoke: 9 tricks for declarer. > > > > This looks like a good problem for a TD course. I hope no one would > > give 10 tricks. If you do, you are allowing declarer to benefit from > > the second revoke. That can't be right. > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 18 07:10:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2HKA4302520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 07:10:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mirapoint.inter.net.il (mirapoint.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2HK9ut02516 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 07:09:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-12-82.inter.net.il [213.8.12.82]) by mirapoint.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AMB19742; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:09:15 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AB3C5FB.2551EAAB@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:15:55 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws , Grattan Endicott Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103161956.OAA15547@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3AB3386F.9442E63@inter.net.il> <3AB34774.A851C3C1@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hihi Herman - don't be sorry but I think we don't agree. A priori we MUST accept that all the players involved don't make such serious irregularities, full intentionally -> if so I believe we agree to kick them out from the club , at least suspension. Herman De Wael wrote: > Sorry Dany, > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > Dear Steve > > > > Very simple :I decide for 10 tricks !!! no fear (I don't like to say "no > > doubt"): 12 tricks won and 2 back for the winning revoke. > > > > You can't even "think" for any penalty or redress for the second revoke: > > please read L64B2.> > and read L64C - when a penalty is insufficient, ... The > 0-trick penalty for the revoke is insufficient. I am sure that the spirit of this law is not simply "insufficient" because one of us thinks so - the real spirit is as I wrote bellow ...If you think there is any other possibility when the redress is not sufficient - more than the two cases I wrote , please inform me . By the way , if you read Grattan's commentaries (for 87 edition) , paragraph 64.8 : "...Law 64C provides the authority for this.The adjustment is not to include any notion of penalty as in law 64A but should aim to restore as nearly as possible an equitable result in line with expectations as they were immediately prior to the revoke".... > > > Nor you can use Law 64C : this law is to empower the TD and AC to restore > > equity when "the result obtained by the revoke and the subsequent tricks could > > never been reached by any legal play" or "compeled the declarer to play a > > line which brought him to another disaster" . > > > > What gives you that idea ? > The purpose is not to let offenders benefit from revokes, > even after paying the penalty. > > > [A dumb example : opps playing in 6Sp and you lead a club , Declarer plays the > > A from dummy(with Axxx and xxx in hand , having a long Diam in dummy and sing > > diam in hand, to discard the other clubs) , I ruff (with 2 small clubs ) and > > when you get the hand with A spade cash the KQ club....Now we got 4 tricks , > > redressing is still one down - we can never get this result if I don't revoke] > > > > I think it is not a difficult case if by the written laws and according to the > > spirit of laws and my Law 0, if you remember : "the laws exist to help the > > flavor of play , not to harness the players to the Laws...". > > > > I agree when you believe the second revoke is unintentional, > but someone who would do it intentionally could never be > caught, could he. > > It is silly to apply L64C only to some "absolute equity". > Both sides could have done outrageously bad things before > the first revoke, and yet we apply the equity position from > that point on. Then why not ahead of the second revoke. > I think that if you respect the written laws you can't ask the question bellow : THERE IS NO PENALTY for the second revoke in the same suit by the same cucuricu-offender, as 64B2. > > Really. How many tricks would declarer have made had he > followed suit to the second club trick : 9. > How many tricks are you giving him after his revoke : 10. > Surely you see that you are in error. Do you still think I am in error ? For my both statements ??? I'd be very happy to see Grattan's "recursive" comments !!!! Dany > > > Dany > > > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > > From: David Stevenson > > > > West is declarer in 4S - lead CA > > > > West East > > > > S K Q J 10 9 S x x x x > > > > H A K Q J 10 H x x x > > > > D x x D A K > > > > C x C x x x x > > > > > > > > Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA > > > > and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now > > > > draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a > > > > winning club at trick 13. > > > > > > Interesting hand. The "normal penalty" ruling is 12 tricks for declarer > > > less two tricks penalty = 10 tricks. (I'm assuming trumps broke 3-2.) > > > > > > Equity before the first revoke is 11 tricks, so L64C doesn't affect the > > > score for the first revoke. > > > > > > At the moment of the second revoke, the defenders have one trick in, and > > > the position is: > > > KQJ xxx > > > AKQJT xxx > > > xx AK > > > x xxx > > > > > > South has just led a club, which either he or his partner is entitled to > > > win. Equity is thus the club plus the S-A already won, plus the two > > > trick revoke penalty already owed because declarer won the revoke > > > trick, thus nine tricks for declarer. So apply L64C to the second > > > revoke: 9 tricks for declarer. > > > > > > This looks like a good problem for a TD course. I hope no one would > > > give 10 tricks. If you do, you are allowing declarer to benefit from > > > the second revoke. That can't be right. > > > -- > > > ======================================================================== > > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 18 09:08:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2HM7Z319035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 09:07:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2HM7St19031 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 09:07:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-101-167.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.101.167]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2HM6rv06445; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:06:53 GMT Message-ID: <000d01c0af2e$bd9b4580$a765063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20010312051753.GCUA3204139.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> <200103121743.JAA31342@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010316124255.00823100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3AB342E4.EDB47AC8@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:05:22 -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 "it is better to live quietly under some degree of misrepresentation than to attempt to remove it by the uncertain process of letter-writing." - Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > Sorry David, but Alain was talking more generally. > Anything that is not prohibited is permitted. > +=+ As long as he was not referring to duplicate bridge that is fine. So far as the game of duplicate bridge is concerned matters pertinent to the game are governed by the WBFLC minute of 1998 to which I have previously referred. A drink is extraneous, not pertinent. ~ 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 Mar 18 11:34:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2I0YEU05647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:34:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2I0Y6t05598 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:34:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-90-206.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.90.206]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2I0XVv14257; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 00:33:31 GMT Message-ID: <000201c0af43$3a9e5ae0$ce5a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Paul Endicott" , "Patricia Davidson" , "lynn hunt" , "Kojak" , "Cathrina Endicott" , "cathie ritchie" , Subject: [BLML] Sorrento (Bridge Championships) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 00:33:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Absent in body, but present in spirit" (Corinthians) <==--==> I am amongst those who will be in Sorrento March 18 to 25 inclusive. ~ 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 Mar 18 13:25:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2I2Ovk04386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 13:24:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2I2Oot04382 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 13:24:51 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id DAA03010; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 03:24:46 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Sun Mar 18 03:27:09 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 <01K1BSRWQ2SM004HNL@AGRO.NL>; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 03:22:37 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 03:22:22 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:36:03 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Subsequent damage - again To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7EF@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 > > Understood. The stated position of the WBF is that they > recommend that > NCBOs put the CoP into effect. My question is whether L12C3 must be > enabled for an NCBO in order for the adoption of the CoP to > put it into > effect, i.e. whether it would otherwise remain ineffective as > contrary > to law. If, as David B. suggests, its legality rests on L12C3, it > would be illegal and void where L12C3 has been voided. Does the WBF > officially agree or disagree with that? I personally do not agree with that, thinking that 12C2 gives enough freedom of interpretation to distinct between subsequent and consequent damage and therewith being able to adjust the score likewise. But I might be preoccupied hoping to get the ACBL willing to follow this aproach even when they don't use the possibility given in 12c3. I don't think we have an official opinion about this. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 18 22:19:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2IBHbg20363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:17:37 +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-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 f2IBHSt20316 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:17:31 +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 14ebBb-0000kH-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:17:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:59:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010313114555.00b8cc80@127.0.0.1> <3AAF7775.F3471154@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314171301.00b892c0@127.0.0.1> <001e01c0ae77$88f0d640$7953063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001e01c0ae77$88f0d640$7953063e@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: David Stevenson >+=+ I have not been following this thread, so I do >not know the history, but my curiosity is aroused.+=+ > >> Eric Landau writes >> >> >That is exactly the debate I thought David S. might >> >be trying to start: is "equity" fixed for a given hand, > +=+ Given the example that follows, I wonder why > anyone is asking about equity here.+=+ Why not? >> Summary of problem >> >> Tandem Swiss Teams 6/1/01- Dealer & Vul irrelevant >> >> West is declarer in 4S - lead CA >> >> West East >> S K Q J 10 9 S x x x x >> H A K Q J 10 H x x x >> D x x D A K >> C x C x x x x >> >> Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to >South's SA >> and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). >She now >> draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself >with a >> winning club at trick 13. >> >> How do you rule? >> >+=+ Does not Law 64A1 apply? Do we not >transfer the first trick plus the trick containing >the Ace Spades to the NOS? > If so, we then check that the application >of Law 64A1 has not insufficiently compensated >the NOS; since it has restored the result >normally to be obtained on the board we have >no grounds to act under L64C. An interesting statement. Perhaps you could tell us the basis for it. L64C makes no reference to damage that only applies to the situation at trick one and not thereafter. > And the problem is? Where am I adrift? > (Incidentally I note the word 'equity' in the >heading of 64C, but this, as we know, is not >considered part of the laws.) The basic approach is the same. Whether a player is insufficiently compensated depends on what you consider sufficient compensation to be, and most people would assume that sufficient compensation is that which achieves equity. So, you presume that equity at trick two is irrelevant, yes? -- 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 Mar 19 21:41:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JAdkn23968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:39:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2JAddt23935 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:39:40 +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 14ex3x-000Fut-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:39:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:19:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a *little* better MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk AQTx K9xxx AJTx Kx Axx KQ9x KT xx You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, which you are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a game-forcing natural 1S, and South bids a natural 2D. With no further intervention by North- South you reach 6NT from the West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, shows the D9 but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ successfully, and cash the SA. South discards a club. How are you going to make this? The rest of the story will follow in a day or two. -- 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 Mar 19 22:30:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JBTQG08025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:29:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2JBTJt07995 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:29:20 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2JBT6N10164 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:29:07 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:29 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a * 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: > AQTx K9xxx > AJTx Kx > Axx KQ9x > KT xx > > You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, which you > are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a game-forcing natural 1S, > and South bids a natural 2D. With no further intervention by North- > South you reach 6NT from the West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, > shows the D9 but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. > > You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ successfully, > and cash the SA. South discards a club. How are you going to make > this? I'm probably going to play North for Jxxx,Qxxxx,Tx,Ax. The end position I will go for is: - - AT - Ax Q9x K xx Down to table presence now I'm afraid. Ideally I want to know if 1H could possibly be a major 2-suiter, or natural. If natural how weak? I'm damn sure it ain't a HD 2-suiter. The answers will likely determine which opponent I squeeze and end play with CA. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 19 23:07:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JC6nr21129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:06:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JC6gt21090 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:06:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA29199; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:06:16 +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 NAA12753; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:06:17 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010319130910.00811550@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 Mar 2001 13:09:10 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] the client and consequent damage In-Reply-To: <3AB2099E.DBA6A211@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010315183445.0081e100@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 13:39 16/03/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> Kxx East / EW >> Axx >> x >> AKxxxx >> >> AJxxxxx Qxx >> x xxx >> xx KQJxxx >> Q10x x >> >> --- >> KQJxxx >> Axxx >> Jxx >> >> W N E S >> >> 3D 3H >> 4S ...6H ...p p >> 6S >> >> South is a pro, and North his client. E/W are competent players, but not >> South's equals. >> >> South calls the TD. East's tempo (much more than 10 sec) is acknowledged. >> The TD instructs to play. They call him back. >> When reviewing the bidding, it bcomes apparent that North was aware of the >> fact that he could have doubled 4S, but he remembered that, if he ended as >> dummy, he couldn't do anything wrong thereafter. So he did his best to >> ensure that his partner would play the contract, rather than having a >> tricky problem on lead. > >This is an important part of the story. North has already >bid in such a way as to minimize the chance of blundering. >> E/W's creation and use of UI deprived him of the prize for his clever tactics. >> Suffice to say that North played like a client does. >> 6H would have scored 80%. 6SX should have been a top. It scored 500, for >> about 40%. >> >> How would you adjust, if you do, assuming that North made a genuinely >> irrational play ? >> > >Well, maybe this 40% only means that the blunder was not all >that irrational. It was probably quite normal "for the >class of player involved". AG : above all, it means th at several pairs were not in slam. Look at the vulnerability. If I remember well, North led the AC and went on with a small club. 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 Mar 19 23:11:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JCBZv22790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:11:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2JCBSt22749 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:11:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA24987; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:07:37 +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 NAA16254; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:11:03 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010319131356.00812100@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 Mar 2001 13:13:56 +0100 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <002001c0ae14$455437a0$25fa7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010316114342.00829100@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 12:26 16/03/01 -0000, David Burn wrote: > >The trouble with these methods is that it really is not possible to play >them ethically, however hard you try. I assure you that whatever >algorithm you use, however efficient you are at applying it, and however >good you are at making bids in an even tempo without expression, I or >any other expert blessed with an ounce of table presence will *know* >beyond shadow of doubt when you are opening a minor naturally and when >you are using your algorithm. AG : IBTD. If your algorithm doesn't use the cards you pick, you may apply it *before* seeing your cards, thus deciding whether you will open 1C or 1D with said hand. No more time needed thereafter. Problem solved. 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 Mar 19 23:28:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JCS1p24662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:28:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JCRrt24658 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:27:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA03094; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:27:19 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA29129; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:27:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010319133012.0082b300@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 Mar 2001 13:30:12 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI, Alaska style In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010316082238.00b8b970@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314113655.00b80ee0@127.0.0.1> <3AAEA0A9.611F5026@hotmail.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010315111651.00b93430@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 08:37 16/03/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >Whether an error is "egregious" has nothing to do with how costly it >turns out to be in the end. That only affects whether an egregious >error, once made, is a factor in the adjustment. AG : write that in golden letters in your course notes. It will be opposable to irate players many times. >Yes. And absent the UI, we know exactly what the result would have >been: 4H (absent the infraction 4H would have been passed out) for +420 >(if Rodwell couldn't find the squeeze for his contract in 5H it is >wildly unlikely that he'd have found it for an overtrick in 4H). WTP? > >Roger's line of argument is exactly what we've been seeing from ACBL >ACs: The NOS was handed an opportunity to beat equity but failed to do >so, therefore they get no adjustment. No need for a finding of >"egregious", indeed, no need for a finding of "error". Nothing more >than a determination that "they could have done better (than the >complement of the adjusted score for the OS) but didn't". AG : hmm. It seems like we should have tooppose it to the ACBL too ... A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 20 00:10:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JDAAA24711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:10:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2JDA6t24707 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:10:06 +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 f2JD9ht14341; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:09:43 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:09:42 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Tim West-meads cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a * In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Tim West-meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: > DWS wrote: > > > AQTx K9xxx > > AJTx Kx > > Axx KQ9x > > KT xx > > > > You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, which you > > are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a game-forcing natural 1S, > > and South bids a natural 2D. With no further intervention by North- > > South you reach 6NT from the West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, > > shows the D9 but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. > > > > You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ successfully, > > and cash the SA. South discards a club. How are you going to make > > this? You can't achieve the position below because the AD has been played - you can't run spades and maintain an entry to give force to the heart threat if North has 4522. The strip squeeze on North will work fine when he has the bare AC though. Best seems to be to play South for the AC, though why he bid only 2D with a 0247 with a bullet is curious. I'm going to ask lots of questions, find out the vulnerability and style of my opponents. If on the second round of hearts North shows with 46xx then I will play him for the stiff CA by pitching a club on the last spade, cashing QD and playing a club out. Otherwise I will throw the TH on the last spade and lead towards my KC playing South for - xx Jxxx Axxxxxx Mark Abraham > I'm probably going to play North for Jxxx,Qxxxx,Tx,Ax. The end position I > will go for is: > > - - > AT - > Ax Q9x > K xx > > Down to table presence now I'm afraid. Ideally I want to know if 1H could > possibly be a major 2-suiter, or natural. If natural how weak? I'm damn > sure it ain't a HD 2-suiter. The answers will likely determine which > opponent I squeeze and end play with CA. > > Tim West-Meads > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 20 00:28:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JDS2r24748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:28:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout01.sul.t-online.com (mailout01.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JDRtt24744 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:27:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd06.sul.t-online.com by mailout01.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 14ezhQ-0002F5-00; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:27:52 +0100 Received: from (520043969553-0001@[217.0.162.183]) by fwd06.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 14ezhH-0L97BoC; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:27:43 +0100 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au References: Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a *little* better X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.34 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:27:43 +0100 Message-ID: <14ezhH-0L97BoC@fwd06.sul.t-online.com> X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi folks, since I am new to this business I am going to introduce myself. My name is Matthias Berghaus ( if you will ever have to pronounce this Matthew or Matt will be fine, don`t worry about the rest), I am a tournament director and player in Bochum, Germany. This is right in the heart of the Ruhrgebiet, which is not as dirty and dusty as people believe it is. I subscribed to BLML at the end of last week, and this is fun already! Since this is a new thread I will let you all have fun too by setting myself up as a target for comments. Here goes.. David Stevenson schrieb: > > AQTx K9xxx > AJTx Kx > Axx KQ9x > KT xx > > You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, which you > are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a game-forcing natural 1S, > and South bids a natural 2D. With no further intervention by North- > South you reach 6NT from the West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, > shows the D9 but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. > > You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ successfully, > and cash the SA. South discards a club. How are you going to make > this? I probably won't, but for the moment I will assume there is a way. Since I didn't think at trick one ( hearts and diamonds,indeed!), let me see what I canpiece together: North has 4 spades, 2 diamonds (99% at least after the bidding and the play) and 5 or more hearts (since South didn't bid them). This leaves CA with South or singleton with North. For the life of me I can't see a squeeze if North has Jxxx,Qxxxx,10x,Ax (he can always blank the HQ if I unblock the king first), so I am going to play him for the blank Ace by cashing my pointed-suit tricks with the help of the marked finesse, unblock the HK and throw him in with the CA to give me the last three tricks. If this is wrong I should not expect the director to correct the score. > The rest of the story will follow in a day or two. > I certainly expect there to be a story behind this! Cheers Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 20 00:40:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JDei724773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:40:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com (mailout02.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JDect24769 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:40:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd05.sul.t-online.com by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 14ezti-0002Ab-05; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:40:34 +0100 Received: from (520043969553-0001@[217.0.165.56]) by fwd05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 14eztW-1SvPeKC; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:40:22 +0100 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au References: Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a * X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.34 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:40:22 +0100 Message-ID: <14eztW-1SvPeKC@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads schrieb: > In-Reply-To: > DWS wrote: > > > AQTx K9xxx > > AJTx Kx > > Axx KQ9x > > KT xx > > > > You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, which you > > are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a game-forcing natural 1S, > > and South bids a natural 2D. With no further intervention by North- > > South you reach 6NT from the West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, > > shows the D9 but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. > > > > You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ successfully, > > and cash the SA. South discards a club. How are you going to make > > this? > > I'm probably going to play North for Jxxx,Qxxxx,Tx,Ax. The end position I > will go for is: > > - - > AT - > Ax Q9x > K xx > > Down to table presence now I'm afraid. Ideally I want to know if 1H could > possibly be a major 2-suiter, or natural. If natural how weak? I'm damn > sure it ain't a HD 2-suiter. The answers will likely determine which > opponent I squeeze and end play with CA. > > Tim West-Meads Sorry, but your DA is gone since trick two. The above is a much better position than the actual one, since you've got communication in the diamond suit, so table presence could be a factor, but you can never throw in South in a 4-card ending after cashing two diamond tricks.This only works if he has 5 diamonds an blanked the CA, impossible in David's scenario. Anyway, North hasn't got a HD 2-suiter, that much seems clear. Cheers Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 20 00:48:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JDmV324791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:48:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2JDmPt24787 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:48:25 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2JDmH404206 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:48:17 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:48 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a * 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: - Mark Abraham wrote: > You can't achieve the position below because the AD has been played - You are correct - I didn't read the suggested play properly past the initial lead. I started playing from the beginning (Win DK, spade to Ace, Run HJ). > you can't run spades and maintain an entry to give force to the heart > threat if North has 4522. I can if allowed to play the contract from trick 1. That diamond to the ace was butchery. 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 Mar 20 01:45:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JEicF24876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 01:44:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@loki.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JEiUt24872 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 01:44:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 14f0tL-0005XA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:44:15 +0000 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a * To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Matthias Berghaus's message of Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:40:22 +0100 Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:44:15 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Tim West-meads schrieb: > > In-Reply-To: > > DWS wrote: > > > > > AQTx K9xxx > > > AJTx Kx > > > Axx KQ9x > > > KT xx > > > > > > You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, which you > > > are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a game-forcing natural 1S, > > > and South bids a natural 2D. With no further intervention by North- > > > South you reach 6NT from the West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, > > > shows the D9 but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. > > > > > > You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ successfully, > > > and cash the SA. South discards a club. How are you going to make > > > this? [lines deleted] > Anyway, North hasn't got a HD 2-suiter, that much seems clear. > > Cheers > > Matthias Pleasant though it is to have bridge play problems sent to BLML, I doubt David Stevenson's prime motivation was to entertain. I suspect we will end up being asked one (or both) of two questions: -- do we consider declarer's actual line of play so bad as to have been the sole cause of his going down in his slam? -- to what extent is a declarer who has heard both opponents bid diamonds with only six cards in the suit between them expected to protect himself from damage from ME? My guess is that declarer played the hand on the assumption that diamonds were coming in, South having Jx. He also has d 3-3, or North holding the singleton club Ace in reserve. As has been pointed out, playing off the diamond Ace lost some substantial extra chances. Matthias states that North hasn't got a red 2 suiter, despite the explanation of 1H given by South. As a matter of experience, I agree with him: South is unlikely to have bid 2d on xx in the suit. But is West not still entitled to protection from ME of the 1h bid if it turns that it really shows the majors? After all, South *might* have psyched 2d on Jx, either momentarily suffering a brain storm or, more charitably, hoping to persuade opponents to misjudge their fit. In that case, if declarer went down when a 12th trick was available by finessing in diamonds, some would say he misplayed it when North was known to hold 4 diamonds. Of course playing off the dA early was wrong but I doubt I'd class it as irrational, wild or gambling. Not that L40C mentions the phrase IWoG but it is common to find ACs using that or a similar yardstick to determine if a player was damaged through his own incompetence or by a ME. So my vote goes to damage to EW which I'll adjust if the explanation of 1H was wrong. What I adjust it to might depend on how difficult the line to make slam is: if North has say Jxxx Qxxxx 10x Ax and only a stip squeeze makes it I might just give EW 50% of slam and 50% of game, on other lies I might give him 100% and the exact percentages would depend on how good a player I judge West to be. But then, I'm just guessing a lot of 'facts' above. :-) --- I always wanted to be someone - I guess I should have been more specific -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 20 05:31:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JIUsk26314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 05:30:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe20.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.124]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JIUkt26272 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 05:30:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:30:39 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.18.121] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a *little* better Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:29:13 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2001 18:30:39.0047 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2641D70:01C0B0A2] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 7:19 PM Subject: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a *little* better | | AQTx K9xxx | AJTx Kx | Axx KQ9x | KT xx | | You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, which you | are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a game-forcing natural 1S, | and South bids a natural 2D. With no further intervention by North- | South you reach 6NT from the West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, | shows the D9 but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. | | You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ successfully, | and cash the SA. South discards a club. How are you going to make | this? | | The rest of the story will follow in a day or two. | | -- | David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Once a second diamond is led early, given N is at least 4-4 in the majors via the play/ auction the scope of possibilities is reduced to [a] diamonds 3-3 [not very likely on the auction] [b] DJ dropping doubleton [proven wrong] [c] finesse N for DJ [likely on auction except for the 2D call, but not on the play] [d] finesse S for CA while have diamond stop/ entry [is N really a maniac?] [d] drop stiff CA [in north] [bid 1H on Jxxx-Qxxx-JTxx-A? but N is squeezed here!] My goal is to take 11 tricks before NS take 3. Make sure the HA is not stranded [after heart finesse] and play off diamonds from the top. [Sometimes the card god will encourage me to be an imbecile again by giving me 4 diamond tricks this time.] 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 Mar 20 06:16:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JJFjV12137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:15:46 +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 f2JJFdt12100 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:15:39 +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 LAA12009; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:15:35 -0800 Message-Id: <200103191915.LAA12009@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a *little* better In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:19:47 GMT." Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:15:34 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > AQTx K9xxx > AJTx Kx > Axx KQ9x > KT xx > > You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, which you > are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a game-forcing natural 1S, > and South bids a natural 2D. With no further intervention by North- > South you reach 6NT from the West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, > shows the D9 but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. > > You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ successfully, > and cash the SA. South discards a club. How are you going to make > this? I'm staring at the hand right now, but one of the first things I'd want to know is the vulnerability. It appears that North's heart bid is natural (or shows majors???), and in any case, I'd want to know what the vulnerability is to figure out what kind of hand North might have to be bidding a queen-nothing suit. Granted, the information may be irrelevant once I finish my analysis, but there's no reason we shouldn't have the information that the actual declarer will have. -- 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 Mar 20 06:56:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JJtg726272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:55:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JJtZt26238 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:55:36 +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 LAA12923; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:55:31 -0800 Message-Id: <200103191955.LAA12923@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a * In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:29:00 GMT." Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:55:30 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > I'm probably going to play North for Jxxx,Qxxxx,Tx,Ax. The end position I > will go for is: > > - - > AT - > Ax Q9x > K xx > > Down to table presence now I'm afraid. Ideally I want to know if 1H could > possibly be a major 2-suiter, or natural. If natural how weak? I'm damn > sure it ain't a HD 2-suiter. "Ideally", this information would help. However, you've already been given an explanation of the 1H bid. Clearly, either the explanation or the bid is incorrect; but if you try to get the correct information, you reveal to the opponents that you have a hand that leads you to believe that you might have been given MI. I wonder if this is one of the points of the problem. Even if we can expect South to realize, upon seeing dummy, that a wheel has come off, we cannot expect him to guess what's actually going on, and we cannot require him to try to protect himself by asking more questions. -- 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 Mar 20 07:25:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JKP4l29107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:25:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com ([206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JKOvt29103 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:24:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17170 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:40:44 -0900 Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:23:54 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a *little* better In-Reply-To: <200103191915.LAA12009@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > I'm staring at the hand right now, but one of the first things I'd > want to know is the vulnerability. It appears that North's heart bid > is natural (or shows majors???), and in any case, I'd want to know > what the vulnerability is to figure out what kind of hand North might > have to be bidding a queen-nothing suit. Granted, the information may > be irrelevant once I finish my analysis, but there's no reason we > shouldn't have the information that the actual declarer will have. I also looked for the vulnerability. Eventually I decided that against many fair to middlin' opponents it was very nearly irrelevant. We already know N doesn't have a strong hand, and the CA is one trick on offense or on defense its presence or absence won't change my decision as North. At favourable I suppose there's an inference available that either I have 4 spades or my hearts are not really as good as Q9xxx, since otherwise I'd surely have jumped? My tongue is only half in cheek. I agree the post should have included vulnerability. But style vs. Precision matters much more than the vulnerability does. Of course we werent told that either :) My best is on mistaken explanation. Perhaps they have a nice complete CC we can check to see if it has Truscott written on it or not? I am betting on Jxxx Qxxx Tx xxx in North and - xxx Jxxx Axxxxx in South. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 20 07:32:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JKW3H29120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:32:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com ([206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JKVvt29116 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:31:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17663 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:47:45 -0900 Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:30:55 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a * In-Reply-To: <200103191955.LAA12923@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry, hit Send before making sure I was clear what I meant re the clubs in my previous post: What I meant was -- I am reasonably sure the defenders are 4423 and 0346 respectively; the 3 missing club honours can be essentially anywhere at random; and while CQxx or QJx in North is a mild argument against bidding, it sure looks to me like the (slightly less than) 6:3 odds in favour of the club finesse is the best shot to make it. Even if North is the sort of player who'd wait for a 5-4 to overcall Precision (losing bridge IMO), I am convinced if south had *7* diamonds he would have bid them, and the DA play, right or wrong, has ruled out any possibility of 4513 in North, the only other possible distribution. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 20 08:58:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JLwFQ29183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:58:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JLw8t29179 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:58:09 +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 QAA29638 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:58:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA18613 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:58:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:58:05 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103192158.QAA18613@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici > A priori we MUST accept that all the players involved don't make such > serious irregularities, full intentionally -> if so I believe we agree to kick them > out from the club , at least suspension. Yes, I hope we all agree on that. Nobody has suggested that the second revoke was intentional. The question is what score to give. > By the way , if you read > Grattan's commentaries (for 87 edition) , paragraph 64.8 : > "...Law 64C provides the authority for this.The adjustment is not to > include any notion of penalty as in law 64A but should aim to restore > as nearly as possible an equitable result in line with expectations as they were > immediately prior to the revoke".... I agree with the above, but I don't see how your ruling follows from it. Immediately prior to the second revoke, how many tricks do you expect declarer to win if he follows suit? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 20 10:06:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JN5aB09584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:05:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umx-mail02.missouri.edu (umx-mail02.missouri.edu [128.206.10.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JN5Vt09580 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:05:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umx-mail02.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id HDC18K52; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:05:27 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010314171301.00b892c0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010313114555.00b8cc80@127.0.0.1> <3AAF7775.F3471154@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010314171301.00b892c0@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:13:48 -0600 To: David Stevenson , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk NS could have claimed at the end of trick two for EW down one. They had one trick in hand, two coming for the revoke (won by the revoking player), and one club trick that could not get away by any conceivable legal play of the remainder of the deal. So how can one reasonably argue that declarer should be allowed to gain back that trick by a second revoke in the same suit? Is this somehow not a case for Law 64C adjustment? None of the arguments I've read are at all convincing. REH David Stevenson writes: >Eric Landau writes > >>That is exactly the debate I thought David S. might be trying to start: >>is "equity" fixed for a given hand, or does it change for the NOS when >>their opponents commit an infraction? > > I think that is the vital question, and I am not sure it has been >answered. My correspondent has now sent me the other hand, so have a >look: > > >Summary of problem > >Tandem Swiss Teams 6/1/01- Dealer & Vul irrelevant > >West is declarer in 4S - lead CA > > West East > S K Q J 10 9 S x x x x > H A K Q J 10 H x x x > D x x D A K > C x C x x x x > >Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA >and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now >draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a >winning club at trick 13. > > How do you rule? > >-- >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 ~ Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 20 10:20:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2JNKWb09608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 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 balder.inter.net.il (balder.inter.net.il [192.114.186.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JNKPt09604 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:20:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-4-105.inter.net.il [213.8.4.105]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AMH31561; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 01:19:41 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AB695A5.93284621@inter.net.il> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 01:26:30 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103192158.QAA18613@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I read the Laws according to their scope : redress damage and equity. I have not the full background for the decision not to deal with the 2nd revoke (as is L64B2) , but I understand that the main idea was that a player can correct it , but nothing else "exists" , it means there is no more redress , unless there is a total "break" of the play , which couldn't be ever obtained at a "clean" play (as L64C) . My opinion is that no one , neither Grattan wrote that commentary thinking about the second revoke - as I said , we deal with it as "did not occur" ...(but 64C when needed) , so I look at the situation before the first revoke . IMHO any other interpretation is not in the scope of the laws and their spirit. Dany Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Dany Haimovici > > A priori we MUST accept that all the players involved don't make such > > serious irregularities, full intentionally -> if so I believe we agree to kick them > > out from the club , at least suspension. > > Yes, I hope we all agree on that. Nobody has suggested that the > second revoke was intentional. The question is what score to give. > > > By the way , if you read > > Grattan's commentaries (for 87 edition) , paragraph 64.8 : > > "...Law 64C provides the authority for this.The adjustment is not to > > include any notion of penalty as in law 64A but should aim to restore > > as nearly as possible an equitable result in line with expectations as they were > > immediately prior to the revoke".... > > I agree with the above, but I don't see how your ruling follows from > it. Immediately prior to the second revoke, how many tricks do you > expect declarer to win if he follows suit? > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 20 11:01:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2K00tb09642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:00:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2K00lt09638 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:00:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14f9Zp-0004Gb-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:00:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:59:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010315115118.00b89ae0@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010316114342.00829100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002001c0ae14$455437a0$25fa7ad5@pbncomputer> <3.0.6.32.20010319131356.00812100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010319131356.00812100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.20010319131356.00812100@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain gottcheiner writes >At 12:26 16/03/01 -0000, David Burn wrote: >> >>The trouble with these methods is that it really is not possible to play >>them ethically, however hard you try. I assure you that whatever >>algorithm you use, however efficient you are at applying it, and however >>good you are at making bids in an even tempo without expression, I or >>any other expert blessed with an ounce of table presence will *know* >>beyond shadow of doubt when you are opening a minor naturally and when >>you are using your algorithm. > >AG : IBTD. If your algorithm doesn't use the cards you pick, you may apply >it *before* seeing your cards, thus deciding whether you will open 1C or 1D >with said hand. No more time needed thereafter. Problem solved. > This may cause problems for partner. if he detects a bias, and the opponents ask the TD if there's a cpu, it will be difficult, post-facto, to demonstrate why you chose 1C rather than 1D. -- 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 Mar 20 11:43:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2K0h1K09667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:43:01 +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-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2K0gtt09663 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:42:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14fAEd-000Dyp-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:42:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:41:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: [BLML] What penalty? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Amber, 2nd in. Pairs. RHO opens 2C (prec = 11-15 w/ clubs) AJxxx Qxxx Jxxx - So you pass. LHO bids 3C (not constructive) , Pass, pass to you. Is double a LA after a tank from partner? It's probably just about 70%, but I'll accept offers What do you think? Now read on ... Our hero tried 4C after the tank, and made a major suit game. np, I ruled it back to 3C-2 (can be down 3 on inspired defence, but I didn't think this pair would want to go to appeal!!) How much of a PP would you award 1) ACBL 2) EBU 3) elsewhere. I found it one of the more blatant examples of cheating I've seen in a while. 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 Mar 20 13:00:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2K1xq309721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:59:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com ([206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2K1xjt09717 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:59:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05122 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:14:57 -0900 Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:58:06 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] What penalty? 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 Once again I am the fool who rushes in with a reply, and waits to be trodden on by the angels: On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Amber, 2nd in. Pairs. RHO opens 2C (prec = 11-15 w/ clubs) > > AJxxx Qxxx Jxxx - > > So you pass. LHO bids 3C (not constructive) , Pass, pass to you. I would say double is the standout call. To try 3S or 4C now seems hyperaggressive; the people who this either of those is a good bid probably also felt lucky and gambled the first round. Pass is cowardly but at amber is still just barely an LA. White or green I don't think I could force anyone to pass this. > Our hero tried 4C after the tank, and made a major suit game. > > np, I ruled it back to 3C-2 (can be down 3 on inspired defence, but I > didn't think this pair would want to go to appeal!!) > I think we need to know what partner's hand is. If 2C-P-3C-P; P-X-P-3M; P-P-P is plausible, our hero gets only 170, not 200. Or it may turn out that partner has an obvious penalty pass of 3Cx. (In which case the offenders still only get 200 since I said Pass still seemed to be a LA.) I would not be surprised to see Pass considered "not likely, but at all possible", which would leado +170 or +200 for OS but -500 or -620 for NOS. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 20 14:30:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2K3Tug12341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:29:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2K3Tlt12291 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:29:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14fCq6-000322-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 03:29:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 03:28:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] What penalty? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Gordon Bower writes > > >Once again I am the fool who rushes in with a reply, and waits to be >trodden on by the angels: > >On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> Amber, 2nd in. Pairs. RHO opens 2C (prec = 11-15 w/ clubs) >> >> AJxxx Qxxx Jxxx - >> >> So you pass. LHO bids 3C (not constructive) , Pass, pass to you. > >I would say double is the standout call. To try 3S or 4C now seems >hyperaggressive; the people who this either of those is a good bid >probably also felt lucky and gambled the first round. > >Pass is cowardly but at amber is still just barely an LA. White or green I >don't think I could force anyone to pass this. > >> Our hero tried 4C after the tank, and made a major suit game. >> >> np, I ruled it back to 3C-2 (can be down 3 on inspired defence, but I >> didn't think this pair would want to go to appeal!!) >> > >I think we need to know what partner's hand is. If 2C-P-3C-P; P-X-P-3M; P-P-P >is plausible, our hero gets only 170, not 200. Or it may turn out that >partner has an obvious penalty pass of 3Cx. (In which case the offenders >still only get 200 since I said Pass still seemed to be a LA.) > >I would not be surprised to see Pass considered "not likely, but at all >possible", which would leado +170 or +200 for OS but -500 or -620 for NOS. A double of 3C will fetch 4S most of the time. So I ruled that pass was a LA, (pard has a 4234 16-count). I thought it was blatant use of UI > >GRB > -- 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 Mar 20 20:02:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2K91Fh28242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:01:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2K918t28238 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:01:09 +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/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id KAA18004; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:00:42 +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 KAA12268; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:00:42 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010320100335.00816100@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 Mar 2001 10:03:35 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a *little* better Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200103191915.LAA12009@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:15 19/03/01 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> AQTx K9xxx >> AJTx Kx >> Axx KQ9x >> KT xx >> >> You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, which you >> are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a game-forcing natural 1S, >> and South bids a natural 2D. With no further intervention by North- >> South you reach 6NT from the West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, >> shows the D9 but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. >> >> You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ successfully, >> and cash the SA. South discards a club. How are you going to make >> this? > >I'm staring at the hand right now, but one of the first things I'd >want to know is the vulnerability. It appears that North's heart bid >is natural (or shows majors???), and in any case, I'd want to know >what the vulnerability is to figure out what kind of hand North might >have to be bidding a queen-nothing suit. Granted, the information may >be irrelevant once I finish my analysis, but there's no reason we >shouldn't have the information that the actual declarer will have. AG : most Truscott (or the like) players are willing to come in at equal with Jxxx / Qxxxx as their 2-suiter. Since 1H seems to have been a 2-suited bid (yours truly sometimes plays a Truscott variant where 1H *shows* H+S), I don't think we should be over-pessimistic and rule out the CA being with length. Style matters, of course, but the same players that use 2-suited low-level overcalls are usually very aggressive in overcalling. 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 Mar 20 20:42:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2K9gR128275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:42:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2K9gKt28271 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:42:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA23204; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:38:29 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id KAA17746; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:41:56 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010320104450.0081a100@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 Mar 2001 10:44:50 +0100 To: "John Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What penalty? 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 00:41 20/03/01 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Amber, 2 in. Pairs. RHO opens 2C (prec = 11-15 w/ clubs) AG : I'm lost. What's a 2 inch amber ? >AJxxx Qxxx Jxxx - > >So you pass. LHO bids 3C (not constructive) , Pass, pass to you. > >Is double a LA after a tank from partner? AG : the question is not, "is double a LA ?". It is "is there a LA to double?". I'd say yes, one might pass. Pass is a LA. The fact that opps don't want to play game and have 8+ clubs between them doesn't guarantee you safety at 3-level. Their hands might well be : Q10x Kxx xx AKxx AKxxx x xxx KJ109x Please tell me which contract you would endeavour. Really, I don't think double meets the standard for an obvious move. Come to think of it, I can't find any case of a hand which would pass a natural bid, then double another bid in the same suit *for take-out*, without LAs. Except perhaps for the integrists who insist on passing 1M when they don't hold 4 in the other major. I'd accept a double of 1S-p-2S-...p-p with, say, x/AQx/KQxx/AJxxx if that was the pair's style. >How much of a PP would you award >1) ACBL >2) EBU >3) elsewhere. >I found it one of the more blatant examples of cheating I've seen in a >while. AG : this is a much exaggerated comment. Players aren't cheating (or at least they don't unless it's proven) ; they meraly use UI. Some even don't know they may not. OK, the 4C bid was clearly influenced by the tempo (so much that I thought you were asking us whether to allow a double ; as I said above, I would not ; I didn't even think of 4C) ; but since I would have taken the risk of bidding 3D myself over 2C (shows any 5440, limited values), I don't find it that much outrageous. Just blatantly incorrect. Do not add a PP. After all, L16B2 doesn't mention this possibility. Correct the score to 3C undoubled minus whatever you think it will be. BTW, you would have been much more embarrassed if the player had merely doubled 3C. It is quite a normal action -only, it may not be done after the tempo-, and this distinction is always difficult to explain. Best 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 Mar 20 20:56:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2K9uIx28290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:56:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout00.sul.t-online.com (mailout00.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2K9uCt28286 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:56:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd05.sul.t-online.com by mailout00.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 14fIs5-0000Bj-04; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:56:09 +0100 Received: from (520043969553-0001@[217.0.163.232]) by fwd05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 14fIrr-1QGQIyC; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:55:55 +0100 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au References: <200103192158.QAA18613@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3AB695A5.93284621@inter.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.34 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:55:55 +0100 Message-ID: <14fIrr-1QGQIyC@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici schrieb: > I read the Laws according to their scope : redress damage and equity. > > I have not the full background for the decision not to deal with the 2nd > revoke (as is > L64B2) , but I understand that the main idea was that a player can correct it > , but > nothing else "exists" , it means there is no more redress , unless there is a > total > "break" of the play , which couldn't be ever obtained at a "clean" play (as > L64C) . > Sorry Dany, didn't declarer win a trick (the last one) "which couldn't ever be obtained by a clean play" (your own wording). How can we deny the NOS redress? > My opinion is that no one , neither Grattan wrote that commentary thinking > about the > second revoke - as I said , we deal with it as "did not occur" ...(but 64C > when needed) > , so I look at the situation before the first revoke . Why not after the first revoke? > IMHO any other interpretation is not in the scope of the laws and their > spirit. > > Dany > How can it be against the spirit of the law to take the club trick away? In my belief the spirit of the law is concerned with multiple revokes in the same suit which don't affect the play. In the actual case the opponents would have received a score of down one if the declarer had played his small club anytime before the point where they had discarded all their clubs, so their club cashed (at last!!). Since this didn't happen (not unexpectedly, after declarer ruffed clubs twice), suddenly the contract makes. This will still be a complete disaster in a pairs game, but in a teams competition you just lose 1 IMP instead of 11 or 13! Before I launch into a long tirade, let me make one thing clear: Nothing of the following is in any way intended to go against the declarer of this deal (I understand this is a deal "from real life"). I don't know this person, so I don't want to cast any doubt on his or her ethics! Let's have a couple of hypothetical cases: Pairs, 3NT, open and shut for 9 tricks. The lead knocks out your only stopper, so you cash out. Dead average, the lead stands out a mile, everybody bids 3NT. Same as above, opponents revoke while you run your long suit, thereby creating a stopper, you are down a couple. You call the director, who gives you the contract, as per 64C. Dead average again. Now your opponents manage to revoke in another suit, winning another trick later on. You still run your 9 tricks and receive another one for the revoke, for a complete top. Lucky you. Next they revoke again (say in your long suit), but don't "create" a stopper yet. But the SECOND revoke does so, so the TD gives you....??? Well, what does he give you? Equity before the lead was 9 tricks, later on 10. Here you have this "break of play" (which is present in the original case, too: see above), only this time its clearer to see. Where does this leave us? Will your line of argument - even if correct (which I don't believe, as you may have guessed by now) - not open the door for unethical behaviour by unscrupulous people who read the rules and paid attention to the fine points? Suddenly there is opportunity to reduce your damage if you manage to revoke a second time (yes, it's strictly forbidden by the rules, but we're talking about unethical players at the moment) in the "right" way. How can we let this happen? Since we can never prove intention the door would be wide open for this kind of practice. Opportunities for this should abound, at very low risk, for defenders and declarers alike. This can't be right, can it? If the wording and/or the spirit of the law are as you claim, then we have to have a look at this laws and change them, if need be, to make these things impossible. If you revoke once, twice, whatever, you deserve what penalty comes to you. I know what I'm talking of, my personal best stands at three revokes in the same suit (unintentionally,I swear!) while relating a story about multiple revokes in the same suit at the same time!! I couldn't have done it any better on purpose. Cheers Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 20 21:06:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KA5h328309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 21:05:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2KA5bt28305 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 21:05:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2KA5TJ12102 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:05:29 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:05 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a * 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: <200103191955.LAA12923@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam irvine wrote: > > Down to table presence now I'm afraid. Ideally I want to know if 1H > > could possibly be a major 2-suiter, or natural. If natural how weak? > > I'm damn sure it ain't a HD 2-suiter. > > "Ideally", this information would help. However, you've already been > given an explanation of the 1H bid. Clearly, either the explanation > or the bid is incorrect; but if you try to get the correct > information, you reveal to the opponents that you have a hand that > leads you to believe that you might have been given MI. > I wonder if this is one of the points of the problem. Even if we can > expect South to realize, upon seeing dummy, that a wheel has come off, > we cannot expect him to guess what's actually going on, and we cannot > require him to try to protect himself by asking more questions. As a generic point this seems a good one. However I am not sure it is relevant to the specific case for two reasons. 1) It is, IMO, obvious to all that a wheel has come off when South shows out on the spade. 2) As declarer I don't care if opponents know exactly what is in my hand - they have no real decisions to make. That said I sympathise with a declarer who may feel as you suggest and would not withhold an adjustment simply because further questions were not asked at this time - or if the wrong inferences were drawn from any replies that were received. One possibility I hadn't considered up to now for instance was a black two-suiter in North (4324) South bidding 2D on -,xxxx,J8xx,Qxxxx. BTW although I described the diamond to the ace as "butchery" this was because it ruined a beautiful end position. In no way would I consider it an egregious error. 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 Mar 20 23:28:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KCRB612670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:27:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2KCR3t12625 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:27:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2KCQtt09838 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:26:55 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:26 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke 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: <200103192158.QAA18613@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve Willner asks > I agree with the above, but I don't see how your ruling follows from > it. Immediately prior to the second revoke, how many tricks do you > expect declarer to win if he follows suit? Personally I expect him to win eleven tricks. I expect defence to win 2. some tricks will later be transferred for a prior revoke penalty. I consider the equity to be 11-2 and after adjusting for the first revoke (there being no penalty for a second revoke in the same suit) I give 10-3. So when I check L64C I do not consider NOS damaged. IOW the revoke penalty does not become part of NOS equity until the end of the hand. Obviously this is not the only approach that could be taken but it does seem to be consistent with the laws if we so desire. I feel a bit sorry for the declarer who realises his revoke at just the wrong moment and ends with 9 tricks but c'est la vie. 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 Mar 21 00:31:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KDRQZ04186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:27:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@loki.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2KDRIt04145 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:27:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 14fMAM-00078r-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:27:14 +0000 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Tim West-meads's message of Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:26 +0000 (GMT) Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:27:14 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > In-Reply-To: <200103192158.QAA18613@cfa183.harvard.edu> > Steve Willner asks > > > I agree with the above, but I don't see how your ruling follows from > > it. Immediately prior to the second revoke, how many tricks do you > > expect declarer to win if he follows suit? [Tim West-Meads replies:] > Personally I expect him to win eleven tricks. I expect defence to win 2. > some tricks will later be transferred for a prior revoke penalty. > > I consider the equity to be 11-2 and after adjusting for the first revoke > (there being no penalty for a second revoke in the same suit) I give 10-3. > So when I check L64C I do not consider NOS damaged. > > IOW the revoke penalty does not become part of NOS equity until the end of > the hand. Obviously this is not the only approach that could be taken but > it does seem to be consistent with the laws if we so desire. > > I feel a bit sorry for the declarer who realises his revoke at just the > wrong moment and ends with 9 tricks but c'est la vie. This position is consistent but I don't like it. It would lead us to rulings like this: AKx KQx Axx Jxxx QJTxx xx Ax xxx QJx Txxx Qxx KTxx xxx JTxxx Kxx Ax Declarer in 3NT wins the sQ lead and leads hK, discarding a spade from hand. West wins hA and clears spades. Declarer cashes hQ, discarding a diamond, and leads dummy's last heart. Now he 'wakes up', overtakes the heart and cashes winners. 3NT +2 (2s, 6h, 2d, 1c). L64A2 says transfer 2 tricks to NOS, so 9 tricks. Now check L64C: equity was 9 tricks at the start of the hand so NOS not insufficiently damaged. Final decision: 3NT =. Can this really be what we want? You may say that the Laws provide adequate sanction if the TD judges that declarer's 2nd revoke in hearts was deliberate, but how on earth is he to decide on that except in a small minority of blantant cases? Otherwise, if declarer can convincingly play dumb, there are *many* situations where a 2nd revoke in a suit could end up with declarer recovering from his first one with effectively no penalty. Put me down in the 'equity changes after 1st revoke' camp. --- I always wanted to be someone - I guess I should have been more specific -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 21 00:54:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KDsGU13753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:54:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f2KDs9t13713 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:54:10 +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 f2KDs5I29567 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:54:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010320084510.00badbd0@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, 20 Mar 2001 08:54:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke In-Reply-To: <200103192158.QAA18613@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 04:58 PM 3/19/01, Steve wrote: > > From: Dany Haimovici > > "...Law 64C provides the authority for this.The adjustment is not to > > include any notion of penalty as in law 64A but should aim to restore > > as nearly as possible an equitable result in line with expectations > as they were > > immediately prior to the revoke".... > >I agree with the above, but I don't see how your ruling follows from >it. Immediately prior to the second revoke, how many tricks do you >expect declarer to win if he follows suit? 11. Which is the same number he'd have won without either revoke. So it is reasonable to argue that whether we assign the score for 9 tricks or 10, L64C doesn't come into play. Which number is correct depends on whether we interpret "damage" in L64C to mean only damage "at the table" or whether we count the loss of a prospective (unearned) penalty as "damage". 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 Mar 21 01:03:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KE3mH17156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:03:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2KE3ft17119 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:03:42 +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 f2KE0TT16660 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:00:29 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010320104450.0081a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010320104450.0081a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:01:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What penalty? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >AG : the question is not, "is double a LA ?". It is "is there a LA to >double?". I'd say yes, one might pass. Pass is a LA. The question is "is one of these two LAs demonstrably suggested over the other by the hesitation?" I think the answer is yes, double is demonstrably suggested. If I understand these things (I'm not at all sure I do) a further question is something like "is double such a clear choice that the fact it is demonstrably suggested irrelevant?" I think it is. So I don't know whether to rule that a double is an infraction or not. But in the actual case, that doesn't matter, since the player didn't double, he cue bid. I'm not sure that's a rational call - I don't think it's an LA - though it may depend on what 2C really means. Is it simply "11-15 with clubs", or is it "11-15, 5+ clubs, if only 5, then a four card major as well"? I've seen it played both ways, but the latter is "standard" Precision, I think. IAC, I'm not sure I'd characterize 4C as "blatant cheating" - though it may depend on the class of player involved. If it were done around here, I'd say it's just some poor fool (possibly me :-) trying to make the best of a bad situation, and screwing it up. But this ain't the Young Chelsea. :-) 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/AwUBOrdjOb2UW3au93vOEQKfPgCfYSty/LT7W4i21fqw3wxtl4pH+YQAniPh yuE07NDLOHfO6M/U3D4lNySl =/pcd -----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 Mar 21 01:11:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KEBKj19749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:11:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2KEBCt19706 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:11:12 +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 14fMqk-00045j-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:11:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 02:19:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a *little* better References: <200103191915.LAA12009@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200103191915.LAA12009@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >> AQTx K9xxx >> AJTx Kx >> Axx KQ9x >> KT xx >> >> You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, which you >> are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a game-forcing natural 1S, >> and South bids a natural 2D. With no further intervention by North- >> South you reach 6NT from the West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, >> shows the D9 but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. >> >> You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ successfully, >> and cash the SA. South discards a club. How are you going to make >> this? > >I'm staring at the hand right now, but one of the first things I'd >want to know is the vulnerability. It appears that North's heart bid >is natural (or shows majors???), and in any case, I'd want to know >what the vulnerability is to figure out what kind of hand North might >have to be bidding a queen-nothing suit. Granted, the information may >be irrelevant once I finish my analysis, but there's no reason we >shouldn't have the information that the actual declarer will have. White. NV v NV. -- 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 Mar 21 01:11:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KEBUj19800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:11:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2KEBFt19727 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:11:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14fMqk-00045m-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:11:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 02:30:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a * References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ian D Crorie writes >> > DWS wrote: >> > >> > > AQTx K9xxx >> > > AJTx Kx >> > > Axx KQ9x >> > > KT xx >> > > >> > > You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, which you >> > > are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a game-forcing natural 1S, >> > > and South bids a natural 2D. With no further intervention by North- >> > > South you reach 6NT from the West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, >> > > shows the D9 but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. >> > > >> > > You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ successfully, >> > > and cash the SA. South discards a club. How are you going to make >> > > this? >Pleasant though it is to have bridge play problems sent to BLML, I >doubt David Stevenson's prime motivation was to entertain. I >suspect we will end up being asked one (or both) of two questions: > > -- do we consider declarer's actual line of play so bad as to > have been the sole cause of his going down in his slam? > -- to what extent is a declarer who has heard both opponents > bid diamonds with only six cards in the suit between them > expected to protect himself from damage from ME? > >My guess is that declarer played the hand on the assumption that >diamonds were coming in, South having Jx. He also has d 3-3, or >North holding the singleton club Ace in reserve. As has been >pointed out, playing off the diamond Ace lost some substantial >extra chances. I think the card-reading is a little stranger than you suggest here. If North has a red two-suiter, then not only has South bid 2D on xx, but also North has led the DT from JTxx. Furthermore, would South really bid 2D on xx when she apparently has eight clubs? >Matthias states that North hasn't got a red 2 suiter, despite the >explanation of 1H given by South. As a matter of experience, I >agree with him: South is unlikely to have bid 2d on xx in the suit. >But is West not still entitled to protection from ME of the 1h bid >if it turns that it really shows the majors? After all, South >*might* have psyched 2d on Jx, either momentarily suffering a >brain storm or, more charitably, hoping to persuade opponents to >misjudge their fit. In that case, if declarer went down when >a 12th trick was available by finessing in diamonds, some would >say he misplayed it when North was known to hold 4 diamonds. Well, everyone says playing off the DA was wrong, but at least it did one thing: it proved South has *not* got D Jx. ---------- So, as Ian points out, and I expect others had guessed, West was misinformed. The 1H bid actually showed H+S, and declarer can make it by leading a club towards the king. In fact he played a third round of diamonds first, setting up South's D Jxxx to cash when he got in with the CA. How do you rule? -- 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 Mar 21 01:44:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KEhK300831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:43:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2KEhEt00798 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:43:14 +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 f2KEhAb68303 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:43:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010320091553.00abdb70@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, 20 Mar 2001 09:43:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:27 AM 3/20/01, Ian wrote: >Can this really be what we want? You may say that the Laws >provide adequate sanction if the TD judges that declarer's 2nd >revoke in hearts was deliberate, but how on earth is he to decide >on that except in a small minority of blantant cases? Otherwise, >if declarer can convincingly play dumb, there are *many* situations >where a 2nd revoke in a suit could end up with declarer recovering >from his first one with effectively no penalty. Put me down in >the 'equity changes after 1st revoke' camp. Imagine that we are writing the 2076 edition of TFLB. By 2076 every club can afford a cheap and simple device that "reads minds" (picture an unintrusive lie detector; you point the device at a subject and ask a question, and a green or red light shows whether or not he is answering truthfully). We will have two types of penalty provisions. Some offenses (e.g. first revokes) will be considered disruptive to the game, and will be penalized automatically regardless of intent. Others (e.g. seeing an opponent's card) will be considered grievous offenses, and will be heavily penalized, if done by intent, but will be legal, carrying no penalty, if done accidentally and innocently. We're not there yet. Today there are two different philosophies as to how the laws should treat offenses in the second class. Some argue that we should penalize them, on the grounds that we cannot permit a cheater to get away with committing a deliberate infraction to gain advantage and then lying to the TD/AC as to his motives. Others argue that we should not, on the grounds that most of the infractions are innocent, and we should not penalize a substantial number of players whom we do not wish to penalize (and won't, in 2076) just to be able to catch the rare cheater. There are ethical arguments (about which is "right" or "fair") and practical arguments (about which is better for the long-term "health" of the game) on both sides. I submit that the current debate over equity after a second revoke in the same suit is really between camps espousing these two different philosophies rather than a narrow matter of the interpretation of L64C in particular. 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 Mar 21 03:04:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KG3hP07542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:03:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2KG3at07538 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:03:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA25493 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:03:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA25188 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:03:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:03:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103201603.LAA25188@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > I submit that the current debate over equity after a second revoke in > the same suit is really between camps espousing these two different > philosophies rather than a narrow matter of the interpretation of L64C > in particular. That's an interesting thought, and I love the "lie detector" for the 2076 rules, but I am not sure the analogy applies in this case. This case seems far simpler to me. Do we really want a player who commits _two_ infractions to score better than a player who commits only one? I am assuming that all the infractions are entirely innocent, so the lie detector will be green. I still rule 9 tricks. How else could I face the declarer at the next table, who revoked only once? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 21 03:17:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KGHli08445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:17:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com (juicer34.bigpond.com [139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2KGHgt08412 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:17:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.53]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GAI84Q00.5AU for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:22:02 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-3.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.3]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Brobdignanian-MailRouter V2.9b 13/6208796); 21 Mar 2001 02:16:31 Message-ID: <02ec01c0b159$2883b5e0$03e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] What penalty? Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:57:59 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: >Amber, 2nd in. Pairs. RHO opens 2C (prec = 11-15 w/ clubs) > >AJxxx Qxxx Jxxx - > >So you pass. LHO bids 3C (not constructive) , Pass, pass to you. > >Is double a LA after a tank from partner? > >It's probably just about 70%, but I'll accept offers > >What do you think? > >Our hero tried 4C after the tank, and made a major suit game. > >np, I ruled it back to 3C-2 (can be down 3 on inspired defence, >but I didn't think this pair would want to go to appeal!!) > >How much of a PP would you award >1) ACBL >2) EBU >3) elsewhere. > >I found it one of the more blatant examples of cheating I've >seen in a while. Pass and Double do seem to be LAs. Adjusting to 3C down two seems just right to me. In the olden days, (2C) P (3C) P (P) X was a Penalty Double. In these enlightened days I wonder if any pair (e.g the actual pair) still play the Double that way? If so, the 4C bidder might have had only two real choices (Pass and 4C) and may have considered (in his own perverted mind) that Pass is not a LA. In (3) "elsewhere" (Australia) I give no PP unless the 4C bidder is experienced enough to know better. 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 Mar 21 03:32:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KGWQ110714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:32:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@loki.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2KGWIt10669 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:32:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 14fP3M-0007YD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:32:12 +0000 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a * To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:32:12 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Ian D Crorie writes > >> > DWS wrote: > >> > > >> > > AQTx K9xxx > >> > > AJTx Kx > >> > > Axx KQ9x > >> > > KT xx > >> > > > >> > > You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, which you > >> > > are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a game-forcing natural 1S, > >> > > and South bids a natural 2D. With no further intervention by North- > >> > > South you reach 6NT from the West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, > >> > > shows the D9 but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. > >> > > > >> > > You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ successfully, > >> > > and cash the SA. South discards a club. How are you going to make > >> > > this? [DWS responded:] [lines deleted] > Well, everyone says playing off the DA was wrong, but at least it did > one thing: it proved South has *not* got D Jx. > > ---------- > > So, as Ian points out, and I expect others had guessed, West was > misinformed. The 1H bid actually showed H+S, and declarer can make it > by leading a club towards the king. In fact he played a third round of > diamonds first, setting up South's D Jxxx to cash when he got in with > the CA. > > How do you rule? David was very charitable with my previous response; I had been unable to distinguish between the d9 and d8 in dummy, important because North's lead of the d10 could initially have been from 109xx but was much less likely to be from 108xx or similar. In any case, we are down to L40C and L12C2. I find this a tough decision, for while declarer did receive an ME, there were clues from both the auction and play to point him in the right direction. And his line seems to gain nothing over the alternative if North did have something like 4-4-4-1 or 4-5-4-0. On the other hand, his line is better than leading up to the cK whenever diamonds are 3-3 and North has the club Ace. Not very likely but I can put my hand on my heart and say I've seen even some good players do bizarre/random things over a precision 1c (is it time to give another airing to that 5200 penalty in 3S XX from the 1995 Spring Fours?). So I think I'd still adjust to slam making. But I'd be willing to let myself be talked out of it on an AC. --- I always wanted to be someone - I guess I should have been more specific -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 21 03:34:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KGYRn11380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:34:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin5.bigpond.com (juicer02.bigpond.com [139.134.6.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2KGYMt11350 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:34:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.53]) by mailin5.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GAI8XC00.6R3 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:39:12 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-3.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.3]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Bashful-MailRouter V2.9b 13/6211267); 21 Mar 2001 02:33:40 Message-ID: <02ed01c0b15b$8e173600$03e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Which LA's are acceptable? Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:33:54 +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 N/S play Acol (4 card suits) with Negative Doubles only to 2S, not at the three level.... Nil vul at Pairs, South dealt and opened 1H on - AK8653 A1073 A109 West overcalled 3S. No "Stop Cards" in Australia. North took 20 to 30 seconds to Pass. East passed. At Tables 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the above scenario, South called Pass, Dbl, Dbl, 4D and 4H respectively. The results were: Table 5: Pass 140 to EW (heart lead, club to queen, trump) Table 6: Dbl 530 to EW (trump lead) Table 7: Dbl 130 to NS (North removed to 4C, made four) Table 8: 4D 50 to EW (North raised to 5D down one) Table 9: 4H 590 to NS (West doubled and East passed) You are called as the Director all five times. What do you rule? Does "being called five times on the same hand" affect your rulings at all, or do you rule each case individually as if the other cases do not exist? OK, so the hand really only occurred at one table, where I sat South and was unsure as to which Logical Alternative(s) were legal call(s). The full hand was: 1075 92 K854 KQ74 AKQ8432 J96 QJ104 7 6 QJ92 6 J9532 - AK8653 A1073 A108 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 Mar 21 03:49:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KGmgH14918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:48:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2KGmYt14914 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:48:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-246.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.246]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 29D76F8CAC for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:48:30 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:46:25 -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 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010320091553.00abdb70@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk C'mon folks. This really shouldn't be difficult. It's a straight application of the laws, and if it can happen to me twice within six weeks it must be happening somewhere out there on a regular basis. Let's forget the five card ending which started this string - the possible H unblock muddies the water. Here is the second hand: > West is declarer in 4S - lead CA > > West East > S K Q J 10 9 S x x x > H A K Q J 10 H x x x > D x x D A K > C x C x x x x x > >Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA >and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now >draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a >winning club at trick 13. >TDs ruling at table: 4S tick. (Laws 64A1 & 64B2: 12 tricks made less 2 trick penalty). >AC ruling: amended to 4S-1 (Law 64C: the position if the second revoke had not occurred) The bottom line here is surely that had declarer followed suit at trick 3 we would all rule 4S-1 (11 tricks -2) without even reaching for the rule book. To allow declarer a tenth trick as the direct consequence of a second infringement is manifestly absurd. Many contributors have become obsessed with L64B2. Dany Haimovici even shouts it at us: >...THERE IS NO PENALTY for the second revoke in the same suit by the same >cucuricu-offender, as 64B2. Surely, however L64B2 provides the "standard penalty" (0 tricks) for a second revoke, just as L64A1or2 provides the "standard penalty" (1 or 2 tricks) for the first revoke. Both are subject to L64C which specifically includes revokes "not subject to penalty". We should not be sidetracked onto a debate about the inner meaning of "equity" which, as has been pointed out, does not appear in the laws per se. In EBUland at any rate we should be following the excellent interpretation of L64C given in the EBL Commentary on the Laws (64.8), and "should aim to restore...an equitable result in line with expectations as they were immediately prior to the revoke." At trick 3 the defence expected 2+2 = 4 tricks and since declarer's second revoke has clearly gained her a trick, NSs claim for the restitution of this trick under L64C appears to me to be unanswerable. Steve Willner is convinced: >This looks like a good problem for a TD course. I hope no one would >give 10 tricks. If you do, you are allowing declarer to benefit from >the second revoke. That can't be right. So too is Herman de Wael, using an EP approach: >equity position before play : 11 tricks. >equity position after first revoke : still 11 tricks, minus >two penalty tricks = 9. and, at the end >12 tricks - minus 2 = 10. >However, since the penalty for the second revoke is nil, >L64C kicks in and we award 9 tricks.> There are one or two waverers, but the majority of all the other contributors are firmly in the "L64B no penalty, L64C doesn't apply" camp. John (MadDog) Probst even asks of DWS: > wtp? are you getting senile? Mad dogs rushing in where angels fear to tread?! It would be nice to have a clear consensus of opinion, if for no other reason than that we can all get it right next time it arises (and it will!). Can I therefore urge the "10 trick" contingent either to come onside or tell us where we are wrong? Chas Fellows ("Brambledown") -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 21 04:10:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KH8EF14946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:08:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2KH88t14942 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:08:08 +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 HAA09301; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:47:53 -0800 Message-Id: <200103201547.HAA09301@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Which LA's are acceptable? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:33:54 +1100." <02ed01c0b15b$8e173600$03e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:07:59 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > N/S play Acol (4 card suits) with > Negative Doubles only to 2S, not at the three level.... > > Nil vul at Pairs, South dealt and opened 1H on > > - > AK8653 > A1073 > A109 > > West overcalled 3S. No "Stop Cards" in Australia. > North took 20 to 30 seconds to Pass. East passed. > > At Tables 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the above scenario, > South called Pass, Dbl, Dbl, 4D and 4H respectively. > > The results were: > Table 5: Pass 140 to EW (heart lead, club to queen, trump) > Table 6: Dbl 530 to EW (trump lead) > Table 7: Dbl 130 to NS (North removed to 4C, made four) > Table 8: 4D 50 to EW (North raised to 5D down one) > Table 9: 4H 590 to NS (West doubled and East passed) > > You are called as the Director all five times. What do you rule? The hesitation suggests values. However, I personally don't think passing is a logical alternative with this hand. Since the hesitation suggests values but not much else specifically, I also don't see any reason to argue that any non-pass action is suggested over any other non-pass action. On the other hand, since it suggests values, it certainly doesn't suggest passing over any other action. Based on all this, I don't think any otherwise legal action by South is prohibited here. I rule score stands at all five tables. -- 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 Mar 21 04:24:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KHO9014965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:24:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2KHO2t14961 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:24:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id SAA14043; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:20:10 +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 SAA02702; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:23:37 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010320182633.008216d0@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 Mar 2001 18:26:33 +0100 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Which LA's are acceptable? In-Reply-To: <02ed01c0b15b$8e173600$03e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:33 21/03/01 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >N/S play Acol (4 card suits) with >Negative Doubles only to 2S, not at the three level.... > >Nil vul at Pairs, South dealt and opened 1H on > >- >AK8653 >A1073 >A109 > >West overcalled 3S. No "Stop Cards" in Australia. >North took 20 to 30 seconds to Pass. East passed. AG : I don't think pass is a LA here. Doing something is obvious. Neither 4H nor 4D are clearly suggested either. I'd accept either of those. I would not accept 4S. If N/S were playing sputniks or other negative doubles at that level, or if West's bid had been 2S, I would disallow a double if it produced a good result, because double was suggested by the value-showing-but-no-bid mechanism. When N/S are playing penalty doubles ... well, the same seems true : North's double suggested he perhaps wanted to double. But it's a close case. I would disallow any action if South had substantially less (say AJxxxx H) Summing up : pass : not a LA, you may pass 4H or 4D : non-suggested LA, you may bid double : probably a suggested, non-obvious LA, you may not double > >The full hand was: > > 1075 > 92 > K854 > KQ74 >AKQ8432 J96 >QJ104 7 >6 QJ92 >6 J9532 > - > AK8653 > A1073 > A108 AG : why did North take such a long time ? At that level, he has an obvious pass. 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 Mar 21 04:30:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KHUN214978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:30:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2KHUFt14974 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:30:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01776 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:37:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103201737.MAA01776@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What penalty? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:37:00 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 20 March 2001 at 0:41, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >Amber, 2nd in. Pairs. RHO opens 2C (prec = 11-15 w/ clubs) > >AJxxx Qxxx Jxxx - > >So you pass. LHO bids 3C (not constructive) , Pass, pass to you. > Ok, before I saw the hesitation, I was thinking "how do I get partner to bid?" Pass was only in my mind because I am worried partner, with four clubs, would float my double. Now that I think about it, however, if partner does pass, it should be survivable; provided partner's good enough to not pass on KQxx and an 8-count. Amber (All Vul, right?) is dangerous at pairs, but I don't make a profit letting the opponents play a voluntary 3C undoubled. My experience with Precision tells me that, yeah, LHO may have that nasty 10-count mentioned earlier (by Alain?) - though I don't expect H AKxx; he'd likely try to find the heart fit first - but he's at least as likely to have xx xxx QTxx Kxxx (or even x xxx QTxxx Kxxx, or x xxx QTxx KJxxx), or worse. I *like* bidding to the 3-level to play opposite a limited opener - it's possibly the biggest reason to play the system. I'll do it on anything that looks LAW-abiding, and maybe even hope to cheat the LAW sometimes. Of course, I do it on those random 10-counts with a suit hole, too; I like the sound the red card makes when it gently flutters to the table :-). But at pairs, -100 against -140 is much more common than +800 against +110. Of course, -100 against +100 is also common :-). All in all, I have no idea *what* to do with this hand; but if I pass, it's only because the only good takeout I can think of is double, and it's dangerous. >Is double a LA after a tank from partner? > Argh. I don't know. It was certainly a LA without the tank. As others said, "is Pass a LA" is the question. Frankly, the tank means "I want to do something, but I don't know what to do" and he doesn't have the shape for double (4234 or something?). So, certainly, action is definately suggested over inaction. If pass is a LA, then 3C-2 (or whatever). If it isn't; well, the question is whether double is suggested over some bid by the "I don't know what to do" (I'm assuming for the minute that my partner isn't the type that can't pass smoothly with a penalty double) or vice versa. In that case, I'd probably force the double (again, assuming we don't have a "hmm, what do I do, I want to double 3C for penalty, but partner will take it out. Oh right, I have to pass; but I don't want to. Oh well"-pass partner here; if there's any hint of that, I force a bid. > >Now read on ... > >Our hero tried 4C after the tank, and made a major suit game. > I have to say I never thought of 4C. I like competing, and yeah, it stops the pass-for-penalty; but that's too rich for even my blood. I can't believe that "pick-a-major-game" is a LA absent the hesitation. Pass, Double, or some guess on a suit all are LAs to me (see above), and 4C is suggested over all of those by the hesitation. OTOH, John has said elsewhere that any action gets you to major-suit game; so if Pass isn't a LA, then no damage (and probably a PPf for "ruffled feathers"). >How much of a PP would you award >1) ACBL >2) EBU >3) elsewhere. > I'd definately ask the reasoning for 4C. I would probably limit myself to a warning; very carefully reading L73C to make it clear what the problem is and to stop the "but that's what I would have bid" statement. >I found it one of the more blatant examples of cheating I've seen in a >while. cheers john Oh, compared to one I had at my table at Hart House, this was banal. What bothers me is that I didn't call the TD. I was so annoyed at myself that I botched the next hand, and "deviated" the last one (getting an excellent score out of it, but partner got on my case anyway, because he was ready to hit anything else they did) 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 Mar 21 04:38:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KHcTD14990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:38:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com (juicer34.bigpond.com [139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2KHcPt14986 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:38:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.53]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GAIBW300.AGO for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:43:15 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-3.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.3]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Aquatic-MailRouter V2.9b 13/6220778); 21 Mar 2001 03:37:43 Message-ID: <03c101c0b164$80957ba0$03e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Which LA's are acceptable? Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:37:56 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >why did North take such a long time ? At that level, he has >an obvious pass. Yes, but it can take a while in a scratch partnership to remember whether you play Neg Dbls in this position or not. That's what she was trying to remember. Thus from my side of the table, her most likely shape is the traditional Neg Dbl shape of 3=2=4=4, in which case she has no clear bid over my Dbl and may well pass - thus Dbl is likely to turn out badly for us (relative to 4H or 4D), since defending 3SX in their ten-card fit with my void opposite a non-penalty-double is not what I want to do - yet your analysis tells me that I mustn't Double. Of course there are other ways of looking at the hand. Is a player really meant to have all these complex thoughts at the table before he can even consider what he'd bid without the hesitation? Peter Gill. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 21 05:08:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KI8Xg15014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 05:08:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin10.bigpond.com (juicer35.bigpond.com [139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2KI8St15010 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 05:08:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.53]) by mailin10.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GAIDA600.BKO for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:13:18 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-3.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.3]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-All-New-MailRouter V2.9b 13/6224670); 21 Mar 2001 04:07:46 Message-ID: <03d001c0b168$b32d9d00$03e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] It is possible that declarer might have played this one a * Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 05:07:59 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >> AQTx K9xxx >> AJTx Kx >> Axx KQ9x >> KT xx >> >> You open 1C, Precision, with the West hand. North bids 1H, >> which you are told shows hearts and diamonds, East bids a >> game-forcing natural 1S, and South bids a natural 2D. With >> no further intervention by North-South you reach 6NT from the >> West hand, and North leads the DT [normal, shows the D9 >> but denies the DJ unless it is singleton or doubleton]. >> >> You win the DK, D to the ace, both following, run the HJ >> successfully, and cash the SA. South discards a club. >> How are you going to make this? > Well, everyone says playing off the DA was wrong, but at > least it did one thing: it proved South has *not* got D Jx. > > ---------- > > So, as Ian points out, and I expect others had guessed, West > was misinformed. The 1H bid actually showed H+S, and > declarer can make it by leading a club towards the king. In > fact he played a third round of diamonds first, setting up > South's D Jxxx to cash when he got in with the CA. > > How do you rule? I think this is a very close decision. Two aspects are: (1) Did West's play of 6NT nullify his rights? I don't think so. North might have led D10 from 10xx (if declarer had DA8 opposite KQ9x in dummy, D10 is the only correct diamond card to lead, after all), and South might have had DJxx on the bidding. Thus West's play is OK to me. IMO. (2) Has the ME contributed to West's failure to make 6NT? With the correct explanation, West knows that North has both majors, making diamond length with South more likely. Thus West is probably less likely to cash the third diamond if West has the correct explanation. Note that West did not have the correct explanation prima facie when South showed out on the first spade, because West did not "absolutely know" that North had hearts! Sure, North seems to have hearts if South is not fooling around, but for all West knows, the correct explanation could even be that 1H showed a 4=3=3=3 shape with four spades (South having mini-psyched). Should West have asked more questions once suspicions of ME arose? Does West have to ask such questions after performing the rather complex mental analysis of assessing whether the asking of such questions compromises West's chances of making 6NT? I think not, but I could be wrong. I would also be mildly interested to know whether South's club discard on the first spade was encouraging, discouraging or neither. From South's point of view, it might be important to tell North what's going on, e.g if North has a spade entry (or HA) and cashing out is necessary, then an honest signal from South is necessary. Not a very important point, but it could be relevant when the decision is as close as this one. I rule (not confidently) that 6NT makes, but I would like to see other people's opinions. Peter Gill. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 21 06:50:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KJo3X25243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:50:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2KJntt25198 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:49:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010320195158.LEJI4360745.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]>; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 07:51:58 +1200 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:49:50 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010320195158.LEJI4360745.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: David Stevenson > Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:34:38 +0000 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > > The question is not what a TD decides, but whether the SO permits it. > No doubt every pair plays what they consider to be the winning approach > but that does not make it legal either. The regulation has already been > quoted, and to be legal it must not fall foul of the regulation. > Surely we also require that the regulation is legitimate. > -- > 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/ > 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 Wed Mar 21 07:44:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KKhn508725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 07:43:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f51.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2KKhft08716 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 07:43:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:43:34 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:43:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What penalty? Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:43:34 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2001 20:43:34.0561 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E94B910:01C0B17E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: alain gottcheiner >At 00:41 20/03/01 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >Amber, 2 in. Pairs. RHO opens 2C (prec = 11-15 w/ clubs) > >AG : I'm lost. What's a 2 inch amber ? Amber = red, vulnerable 2 in = 2nd round (short from something like, "We're 2 boards into the match") > >AJxxx Qxxx Jxxx - > > > >So you pass. LHO bids 3C (not constructive) , Pass, pass to you. > > > >Is double a LA after a tank from partner? > >AG : the question is not, "is double a LA ?". It is "is there a LA to >double?". I'd say yes, one might pass. Pass is a LA. That's not what I've been understanding. You determine all the LA's (both double and pass could be LA's) and then determine if any subset of LA's is suggested over another. Of course, the cyclical dependency problem is still not resolved. (That is, if A is suggested over B, B is suggested over C, and C is suggested over A, are all of ABC verboten or none of them?) -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 Mar 21 09:34:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KMY2i23010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:34:02 +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 f2KMXrt22965 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:33:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-030.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.222]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA19401 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:33:43 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:34:33 -0000 Message-ID: <01C0B18D.EFDCBD60.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] What penalty? Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:34:32 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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 John (MadDog) Probst asked: Amber, 2nd in. Pairs. RHO opens 2C (prec = 11-15 w/ clubs) AJxxx Qxxx Jxxx - So you pass. LHO bids 3C (not constructive) , Pass, pass to you. Is double a LA after a tank from partner? It's probably just about 70%, but I'll accept offers What do you think? Now read on ... Our hero tried 4C after the tank, and made a major suit game. np, I ruled it back to 3C-2 (can be down 3 on inspired defence, but I didn't think this pair would want to go to appeal!!) How much of a PP would you award 1) ACBL 2) EBU 3) elsewhere. I found it one of the more blatant examples of cheating I've seen in a while. cheers john -- Pass is an LA in that as many as 3 out of 10 of South's peers would Pass (or at least give it serious consideration). Does the UI suggest 4C over Pass? I think so. So 3C-2. Cheating? This is strong - but regular TD's know their players and their capabilities. 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 Mar 21 09:42:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2KMfvp25846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:41:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2KMfmt25797 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:41:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-030.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.222]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA21549 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:41:39 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:42:30 -0000 Message-ID: <01C0B18F.0BBC3FA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:42:29 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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 Bramledown wrote: > West is declarer in 4S - lead CA > > West East > S K Q J 10 9 S x x x > H A K Q J 10 H x x x > D x x D A K > C x C x x x x x > >Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA >and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now >draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a >winning club at trick 13. >TDs ruling at table: 4S tick. (Laws 64A1 & 64B2: 12 tricks made less 2 trick penalty). >AC ruling: amended to 4S-1 (Law 64C: the position if the second revoke had not occurred) The bottom line here is surely that had declarer followed suit at trick 3 we would all rule 4S-1 (11 tricks -2) without even reaching for the rule book. To allow declarer a tenth trick as the direct consequence of a second infringement is manifestly absurd. It would be nice to have a clear consensus of opinion, if for no other reason than that we can all get it right next time it arises (and it will!). Can I therefore urge the "10 trick" contingent either to come onside or tell us where we are wrong? Chas Fellows ("Brambledown") -- I agree that 4S-1 seems obvious! 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 Mar 21 11:39:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2L0ccb08441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:38:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2L0cSt08387 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:38:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-17-121.inter.net.il [213.8.17.121]) by heimdall.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AMR56210; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:37:54 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AB7F97D.C356914C@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:44:45 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brambledown CC: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Chas Most of your opinions are in "the scope" and "the spirit" of the Laws. About Mr. Probst - Mad Dogs ok , but beware of his son - The Rotwiller........!!!!! More details I wrote answering other people. Dany Brambledown wrote: > C'mon folks. This really shouldn't be difficult. It's a > straight application of the laws, and if it can happen to me twice > within six weeks it must be happening somewhere out there on a > regular basis. > > Let's forget the five card ending which started this string - the > possible H unblock muddies the water. > Here is the second hand: > > > West is declarer in 4S - lead CA > > > > West East > > S K Q J 10 9 S x x x > > H A K Q J 10 H x x x > > D x x D A K > > C x C x x x x x > > > >Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA > >and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now > >draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a > >winning club at trick 13. > >TDs ruling at table: 4S tick. (Laws 64A1 & 64B2: 12 tricks made > less 2 trick penalty). > >AC ruling: amended to 4S-1 (Law 64C: the position if the second > revoke had not occurred) > > The bottom line here is surely that had declarer followed suit at > trick 3 we would all rule 4S-1 (11 tricks -2) without even > reaching for the rule book. To allow declarer a tenth trick as > the direct consequence of a second infringement is manifestly absurd. > > Many contributors have become obsessed with L64B2. Dany Haimovici > even shouts it at us: > > >...THERE IS NO PENALTY for the second revoke in the same suit by the same > >cucuricu-offender, as 64B2. > > Surely, however L64B2 provides the "standard penalty" (0 tricks) > for a second revoke, just as L64A1or2 provides the "standard > penalty" (1 or 2 tricks) for the first revoke. Both are subject > to L64C which specifically includes revokes "not subject to penalty". > We should not be sidetracked onto a debate about the inner meaning > of "equity" which, as has been pointed out, does not appear in the > laws per se. In EBUland at any rate we should be following the > excellent interpretation of L64C given in the EBL Commentary on > the Laws (64.8), and "should aim to restore...an equitable result > in line with expectations as they were immediately prior to the > revoke." At trick 3 the defence expected 2+2 = 4 tricks and since > declarer's second revoke has clearly gained her a trick, NSs claim > for the restitution of this trick under L64C appears to me to be > unanswerable. > > Steve Willner is convinced: > >This looks like a good problem for a TD course. I hope no one would > >give 10 tricks. If you do, you are allowing declarer to benefit from > >the second revoke. That can't be right. > > So too is Herman de Wael, using an EP approach: > >equity position before play : 11 tricks. > >equity position after first revoke : still 11 tricks, minus > >two penalty tricks = 9. > and, at the end > >12 tricks - minus 2 = 10. > >However, since the penalty for the second revoke is nil, > >L64C kicks in and we award 9 tricks.> > > There are one or two waverers, but the majority of all the other > contributors are firmly in the "L64B no penalty, L64C doesn't > apply" camp. John (MadDog) Probst even asks of DWS: > > > wtp? are you getting senile? > > Mad dogs rushing in where angels fear to tread?! > > It would be nice to have a clear consensus of opinion, if for no > other reason than that we can all get it right next time it arises > (and it will!). Can I therefore urge the "10 trick" contingent > either to come onside or tell us where we are wrong? > > Chas Fellows ("Brambledown") > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 21 11:54:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2L0s4R13879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:54:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from balder.inter.net.il (balder.inter.net.il [192.114.186.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2L0rtt13824 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:53:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-17-121.inter.net.il [213.8.17.121]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AMI56935; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:53:12 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AB7FD14.21C7645C@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:00:04 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103201603.LAA25188@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have a proposal : Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > I submit that the current debate over equity after a second revoke in > > the same suit is really between camps espousing these two different > > philosophies rather than a narrow matter of the interpretation of L64C > > in particular. > > That's an interesting thought, and I love the "lie detector" for the > 2076 rules, but I am not sure the analogy applies in this case. This > case seems far simpler to me. Do we really want a player who commits > _two_ infractions to score better than a player who commits only one? > > I am assuming that all the infractions are entirely innocent, so the > lie detector will be green. I still rule 9 tricks. How else could I > face the declarer at the next table, who revoked only once? > You will face all the players , because you apply the written laws. As I wrote in one of my messages : I don't know and have not the full background why L64B2 is in the laws Book , but i trust the "old clever persons" who initiated this paragraph that there were good reasons . I am very curious to know them and suggest to wait for his Holliness Grattan to come back and tell us . I don't mind to open a serious discussion if this paragraph is good or bad but the proper way is to have all the data before starting this. If you ask me from a philosophical point of view : I am not sure that the Revoke penalty of 2 tricks is in the scope of the laws !!!! But again i suggest to ask Grattan to send us a master piece about the background and history of the paragraphs of Laws 61-64 . (Maybe it will a doctorate thesis or a start for chnging these Laws in the spirit of the "SCOPE") Dany > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 21 12:25:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2L1PMD20002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:25:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from frigg.inter.net.il (frigg.inter.net.il [192.114.186.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2L1PEt19994 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:25:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-17-121.inter.net.il [213.8.17.121]) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AMT58592; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:22:13 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AB803E1.728D7F66@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:29:05 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthias Berghaus CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103192158.QAA18613@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3AB695A5.93284621@inter.net.il> <14fIrr-1QGQIyC@fwd05.sul.t-online.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Matthias I know these Laws (61-64) almost by heart , but more important I read them very carefully and that was the "incentive" to buy Grattan's commentaries 8-9 years ago : I wanted to know why MUST punish the revoker , if we can calculate the tricks , which should be obtained by the "clean" play. I must say I have not a very clear answer : of course there should be corrections , penalty cards and UI problems , seeing a card which couldn't appear at that trick- but the main and real problem is : How to explain to Mr. ABCDEF who played brilliantly hand number 12345 that his result is not top (he got 680 , when 80% of players got 650 and 19.6% got 420) but Mr. Anticucuricu got 710 , because his opponent revoked ??????????????? Why do we "punish" Mr. ABCDEF reducing his score? About Law64C - it applies only at the end of the play when the TD only then can analyze the damage , before he "deems" the compensation as sufficient or not. The last issue : as much as I remember we all agreed that we believe that all the irregularities were inadvertent - otherwise I don't need the Laws book - just kick out the "criminals". In practice after directing many thousands sessions at very different levels , you develop a marvelous nose to "smell" the cases - but always starting form the a priori assumption that the players are not "criminals". Dany Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Dany Haimovici schrieb: > > I read the Laws according to their scope : redress damage and equity. > > > > I have not the full background for the decision not to deal with the 2nd > > revoke (as is > > L64B2) , but I understand that the main idea was that a player can correct it > > , but > > nothing else "exists" , it means there is no more redress , unless there is a > > total > > "break" of the play , which couldn't be ever obtained at a "clean" play (as > > L64C) . > > > > Sorry Dany, didn't declarer win a trick (the last one) "which couldn't ever be > obtained by a clean play" (your own wording). How can we deny the NOS redress? > > > My opinion is that no one , neither Grattan wrote that commentary thinking > > about the > > second revoke - as I said , we deal with it as "did not occur" ...(but 64C > > when needed) > > , so I look at the situation before the first revoke . > > Why not after the first revoke? > > > IMHO any other interpretation is not in the scope of the laws and their > > spirit. > > > > Dany > > > How can it be against the spirit of the law to take the club trick away? In my > belief the spirit of the law is concerned with multiple revokes in the same suit > which don't affect the play. In the actual case the opponents would have > received a score of down one if the declarer had played his small club anytime > before the point where they had discarded all their clubs, so their club cashed > (at last!!). Since this didn't happen (not unexpectedly, after declarer ruffed > clubs twice), suddenly the contract makes. This will still be a complete > disaster in a pairs game, but in a teams competition you just lose 1 IMP instead > of 11 or 13! > > Before I launch into a long tirade, let me make one thing clear: Nothing of the > following is in any way intended to go against the declarer of this deal (I > understand this is a deal "from real life"). I don't know this person, so I > don't want to cast any doubt on his or her ethics! > > Let's have a couple of hypothetical cases: > > Pairs, 3NT, open and shut for 9 tricks. The lead knocks out your only stopper, > so you cash out. Dead average, the lead stands out a mile, everybody bids 3NT. > > Same as above, opponents revoke while you run your long suit, thereby creating a > stopper, you are down a couple. You call the director, who gives you the > contract, as per 64C. Dead average again. > > Now your opponents manage to revoke in another suit, winning another trick later > on. You still run your 9 tricks and receive another one for the revoke, for a > complete top. Lucky you. > > Next they revoke again (say in your long suit), but don't "create" a stopper > yet. But the SECOND revoke does so, so the TD gives you....??? Well, what does > he give you? Equity before the lead was 9 tricks, later on 10. > > Here you have this "break of play" (which is present in the original case, too: > see above), only this time its clearer to see. Where does this leave us? Will > your line of argument - even if correct (which I don't believe, as you may have > guessed by now) - not open the door for unethical behaviour by unscrupulous > people who read the rules and paid attention to the fine points? > Suddenly there > is opportunity to reduce your damage if you manage to revoke a second time (yes, > it's strictly forbidden by the rules, but we're talking about unethical players > at the moment) in the "right" way. How can we let this happen? Since we can > never prove intention the door would be wide open for this kind of practice. > Opportunities for this should abound, at very low risk, for defenders and > declarers alike. This can't be right, can it? > > If the wording and/or the spirit of the law are as you claim, then we have to > have a look at this laws and change them, if need be, to make these things > impossible. If you revoke once, twice, whatever, you deserve what penalty comes > to you. I know what I'm talking of, my personal best stands at three revokes in > the same suit (unintentionally,I swear!) while relating a story about multiple > revokes in the same suit at the same time!! I couldn't have done it any better > on purpose. > > Cheers > > Matthias > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 21 12:32:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2L1WZq20221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:32:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from frigg.inter.net.il (frigg.inter.net.il [192.114.186.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2L1WRt20213 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:32:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-17-121.inter.net.il [213.8.17.121]) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AMT58923; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:31:42 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AB8061A.6C3D5D92@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:38:35 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian D Crorie CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Ian Please read the answers to the other messages for the background and the data which lead the lawsmakers to decide for the present Laws 61-64. The fantastic case you presented bellow is exactly for Law64C. I don't think the lawsmakers should publish the Laws Book with all Zillions of possible complex or ittirated irregularities , I believe that practically no one will be able to cover all the combinations , but worse, no one will be able to navigate through the FLB in a practical short while - at most he will be very carefull that TVHFBL (VH=very heavy !) will not fall on a table or on his foot to break them ! Cheers Dany Ian D Crorie wrote: > > In-Reply-To: <200103192158.QAA18613@cfa183.harvard.edu> > > Steve Willner asks > > > > > I agree with the above, but I don't see how your ruling follows from > > > it. Immediately prior to the second revoke, how many tricks do you > > > expect declarer to win if he follows suit? > > [Tim West-Meads replies:] > > Personally I expect him to win eleven tricks. I expect defence to win 2. > > some tricks will later be transferred for a prior revoke penalty. > > > > I consider the equity to be 11-2 and after adjusting for the first revoke > > (there being no penalty for a second revoke in the same suit) I give 10-3. > > So when I check L64C I do not consider NOS damaged. > > > > IOW the revoke penalty does not become part of NOS equity until the end of > > the hand. Obviously this is not the only approach that could be taken but > > it does seem to be consistent with the laws if we so desire. > > > > I feel a bit sorry for the declarer who realises his revoke at just the > > wrong moment and ends with 9 tricks but c'est la vie. > > This position is consistent but I don't like it. It would lead > us to rulings like this: > > AKx > KQx > Axx > Jxxx > QJTxx xx > Ax xxx > QJx Txxx > Qxx KTxx > xxx > JTxxx > Kxx > Ax > > Declarer in 3NT wins the sQ lead and leads hK, discarding a spade > from hand. West wins hA and clears spades. Declarer cashes > hQ, discarding a diamond, and leads dummy's last heart. Now he > 'wakes up', overtakes the heart and cashes winners. > > 3NT +2 (2s, 6h, 2d, 1c). L64A2 says transfer 2 tricks to NOS, > so 9 tricks. Now check L64C: equity was 9 tricks at the start of > the hand so NOS not insufficiently damaged. Final decision: > 3NT =. > > Can this really be what we want? You may say that the Laws > provide adequate sanction if the TD judges that declarer's 2nd > revoke in hearts was deliberate, but how on earth is he to decide > on that except in a small minority of blantant cases? Otherwise, > if declarer can convincingly play dumb, there are *many* situations > where a 2nd revoke in a suit could end up with declarer recovering > from his first one with effectively no penalty. Put me down in > the 'equity changes after 1st revoke' camp. > > --- > I always wanted to be someone - I guess I should have been more specific > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 21 12:42:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2L1f2T20507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:41:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thor.inter.net.il (thor.inter.net.il [192.114.186.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2L1ert20493 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:40:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-17-121.inter.net.il [213.8.17.121]) by thor.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AME57643; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:40:11 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AB80817.515BFB83@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:47:03 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010320084510.00badbd0@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 I agree with your philosophy and , as I answered someone else, I have a lot of "suspicions" if the present Law 64A1 is exactly in the "scope of the laws" . A priori - and I declare again I must have all the data and background which convinced the lawmakers , which I have not now - I don't think that the "1 more trick" to transfer to the NOS is right; I believe that only 64C is "in the scope" - I point it again , before I have all the background. Let wait for Grattan and the other huge personalities who created the modern Laws Book to show us all the basic data and ideas. Friendly Dany Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:58 PM 3/19/01, Steve wrote: > > > > From: Dany Haimovici > > > "...Law 64C provides the authority for this.The adjustment is not to > > > include any notion of penalty as in law 64A but should aim to restore > > > as nearly as possible an equitable result in line with expectations > > as they were > > > immediately prior to the revoke".... > > > >I agree with the above, but I don't see how your ruling follows from > >it. Immediately prior to the second revoke, how many tricks do you > >expect declarer to win if he follows suit? > > 11. Which is the same number he'd have won without either revoke. So > it is reasonable to argue that whether we assign the score for 9 tricks > or 10, L64C doesn't come into play. > > Which number is correct depends on whether we interpret "damage" in > L64C to mean only damage "at the table" or whether we count the loss of > a prospective (unearned) penalty as "damage". > > 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 Wed Mar 21 12:53:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2L1pdn20858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:51:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2L1pWt20850 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:51:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-17-121.inter.net.il [213.8.17.121]) by heimdall.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AMR58524; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:51:18 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AB80AB2.3C24792@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:58:10 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" CC: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <01C0B18F.0BBC3FA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Is 4Sp-1 obvious because you believe it ....For me , as a player it is obvious I must get the score of 450 (11 tricks) because ...etc , etc. Please read my answers to other collistiers where I published for the first time what is deep in my .....memory (I wanted to write brains , but not nice to tell the world things which I have not !!!). Cheers Dany Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > Bramledown wrote: > > > West is declarer in 4S - lead CA > > > > West East > > S K Q J 10 9 S x x x > > H A K Q J 10 H x x x > > D x x D A K > > C x C x x x x x > > > >Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA > >and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now > >draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a > >winning club at trick 13. > >TDs ruling at table: 4S tick. (Laws 64A1 & 64B2: 12 tricks made > less 2 trick penalty). > >AC ruling: amended to 4S-1 (Law 64C: the position if the second > revoke had not occurred) > > The bottom line here is surely that had declarer followed suit at > trick 3 we would all rule 4S-1 (11 tricks -2) without even > reaching for the rule book. To allow declarer a tenth trick as > the direct consequence of a second infringement is manifestly absurd. > > It would be nice to have a clear consensus of opinion, if for no > other reason than that we can all get it right next time it arises > (and it will!). Can I therefore urge the "10 trick" contingent > either to come onside or tell us where we are wrong? > > Chas Fellows ("Brambledown") > -- > > I agree that 4S-1 seems obvious! > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 21 13:29:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2L2RYb22891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:27:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2L2RQt22883 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:27:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt9io.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.166.88]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA13191 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 21:27:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <02e101c0b1ae$c5585420$f3a3aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What penalty? Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 20:29:33 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote > On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > Amber, 2nd in. Pairs. RHO opens 2C (prec = 11-15 w/ clubs) > > [s] > > Pass is cowardly but at amber is still just barely an LA. White or green I > don't think I could force anyone to pass this. > Translation of these colors for some of us, found at http://www.bridgeworld.com/glossary/glossv.html : Vulnerability conditions (B) amber (U.K.) = both sides vulnerable. (B) equal = neither side vulnerable or both sides vulnerable. (B) favorable = nonvulnerable against vulnerable opponents. (B) green (U.K.) = nonvulnerable against vulnerable opponents. (B) horse and horse = both sides vulnerable. (B) red (U.K.) = vulnerable against nonvulnerable opponents. (B) red (U.S.) = vulnerable. (B) red against red (U.S.) = both sides vulnerable. (B) red against white (U.S.) = vulnerable against nonvulnerable opponents. (B) unfavorable = vulnerable against nonvulnerable opponents. (B) white (U.S.) = nonvulnerable. (B) white (U.K.) = neither side vulnerable. (B) white against red (U.S.) = nonvulnerable against vulnerable opponents. (B) white against white (U.S.) = neither side vulnerable. I like the efficiency of the U.K. system. Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 21 14:51:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2L3owY25122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:50:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2L3oot25115 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:50:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14fZe2-000JlQ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:50:46 +0000 Message-ID: <6OfKK0B$SCu6EwHy@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:49:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] What penalty? References: <01C0B18D.EFDCBD60.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C0B18D.EFDCBD60.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <01C0B18D.EFDCBD60.tsvecfob@iol.ie>, Fearghal O'Boyle writes > >John (MadDog) Probst asked: >Amber, 2nd in. Pairs. RHO opens 2C (prec = 11-15 w/ clubs) > Amber - game all. 2nd in = Dealer is my RHO. Pairs = matchpoints RHO (qv) = Right Hand opponent (the dealer) >AJxxx Qxxx Jxxx - > >So you pass. LHO bids 3C (not constructive) , Pass, pass to you. > >Is double a LA after a tank from partner? > >It's probably just about 70%, but I'll accept offers > >What do you think? > > > >Now read on ... > >Our hero tried 4C after the tank, and made a major suit game. > >np, I ruled it back to 3C-2 (can be down 3 on inspired defence, but I >didn't think this pair would want to go to appeal!!) > >How much of a PP would you award >1) ACBL >2) EBU >3) elsewhere. > >I found it one of the more blatant examples of cheating I've seen in a >while. 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 Wed Mar 21 21:19:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2LAIm917765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 21:18:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2LAIgt17759 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 21:18:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010321102047.UJKB4360745.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]>; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:20:47 +1200 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "John "MadDog" Probst" CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:18:37 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010321102047.UJKB4360745.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:36:47 +0000 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > The object of the game is to maximise screwing the opponents and > minimise screwing partner. He is highly ethical and seeks to maximise > his chances of screwing the opponents legally. The whole point is that > he must prove to me that he is *not* psyching otherwise I may choose to > believe he has a CPU. To suggest that he is dishonest is libellous. I don't see why he has to prove that. I think that you need to prove that he is psyching. To say that he has to prove he is not psyching is a suggestion that he is dishonest when he tells you he is not. > -- > 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/ > 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 Wed Mar 21 22:14:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2LBDUv03334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:13:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2LBDKt03321 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:13:21 +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 14fgYE-0000FH-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:13:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:13:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010320091553.00abdb70@127.0.0.1> 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 Brambledown writes >C'mon folks. This really shouldn't be difficult. It's a >straight application of the laws, and if it can happen to me twice >within six weeks it must be happening somewhere out there on a >regular basis. If it were as simple as that then we would not be discussing it. The actual Law is not unambiguous. >Let's forget the five card ending which started this string - the >possible H unblock muddies the water. >Here is the second hand: > >> West is declarer in 4S - lead CA >> >> West East >> S K Q J 10 9 S x x x >> H A K Q J 10 H x x x >> D x x D A K >> C x C x x x x x >> >>Declarer ruffs in hand at trick 1 (revoke), leads a spade to South's SA >>and ruffs the club return at trick 3 (2nd revoke in same suit). She now >>draws trumps, cashes 2 diamonds and five hearts and finds herself with a >>winning club at trick 13. >>TDs ruling at table: 4S tick. (Laws 64A1 & 64B2: 12 tricks made >less 2 trick penalty). >>AC ruling: amended to 4S-1 (Law 64C: the position if the second >revoke had not occurred) > >The bottom line here is surely that had declarer followed suit at >trick 3 we would all rule 4S-1 (11 tricks -2) without even >reaching for the rule book. To allow declarer a tenth trick as >the direct consequence of a second infringement is manifestly absurd. Why? There are a lot of odd happenings to do with the Laws. Just because they are not necessarily the way you would write the Laws if you had thought of them does not make them absurd. >Many contributors have become obsessed with L64B2. Dany Haimovici >even shouts it at us: > >>...THERE IS NO PENALTY for the second revoke in the same suit by the same >>cucuricu-offender, as 64B2. > >Surely, however L64B2 provides the "standard penalty" (0 tricks) >for a second revoke, just as L64A1or2 provides the "standard >penalty" (1 or 2 tricks) for the first revoke. Both are subject >to L64C which specifically includes revokes "not subject to penalty". >We should not be sidetracked onto a debate about the inner meaning >of "equity" which, as has been pointed out, does not appear in the >laws per se. In EBUland at any rate we should be following the >excellent interpretation of L64C given in the EBL Commentary on >the Laws (64.8), and "should aim to restore...an equitable result >in line with expectations as they were immediately prior to the >revoke." At trick 3 the defence expected 2+2 = 4 tricks and since >declarer's second revoke has clearly gained her a trick, NSs claim >for the restitution of this trick under L64C appears to me to be >unanswerable. Of course it is answerable. As you say, the word equity does not appear in the Laws, and the EBL Commentary is referring to a simple revoke scenario. The basic problem, which has not been answered, is whether there is equity in the hand, or whether it alters trick by trick. To use the wording of L64C, have the NOs been damaged by this. Now it may seem obvious to you that they have, but not necessarily to everyone, and it certainly is not absolutely clear from reading the Laws. >It would be nice to have a clear consensus of opinion, if for no >other reason than that we can all get it right next time it arises >(and it will!). Can I therefore urge the "10 trick" contingent >either to come onside or tell us where we are wrong? I do not think you will get a consensus of opinion by saying that it is obvious from the Laws: it is not. It may be right to give nine tricks, but it is far from obvious that the Laws require 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 Wed Mar 21 22:14:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2LBDYl03343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:13:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2LBDNt03322 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:13:24 +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 14fgYE-0000FI-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:13:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:17:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103201603.LAA25188@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200103201603.LAA25188@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: Eric Landau >> I submit that the current debate over equity after a second revoke in >> the same suit is really between camps espousing these two different >> philosophies rather than a narrow matter of the interpretation of L64C >> in particular. > >That's an interesting thought, and I love the "lie detector" for the >2076 rules, but I am not sure the analogy applies in this case. This >case seems far simpler to me. Do we really want a player who commits >_two_ infractions to score better than a player who commits only one? > >I am assuming that all the infractions are entirely innocent, so the >lie detector will be green. I still rule 9 tricks. How else could I >face the declarer at the next table, who revoked only once? Let me see. I bid out of turn, silencing partner, which strangely enough happens at the next table as well. As a result we miss a cheap save. Then I lead out of turn, and declarer gets it wrong by accepting the lead and going off in a cold contract. Dear me: two infractions do better than one. When we apply the Laws we hope they will do what we instinctively feel is right. But they do not always. There are rub-of-the-green situations and strange effects. Some of the strangest effects as we have seen many times on BLML follow multiple irregularities. -- 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 Mar 21 22:14:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2LBDkS03350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:13:47 +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-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 f2LBDTt03335 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:13:30 +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 14fgYF-000JJp-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:13:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:35:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What penalty? 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 >Amber, 2nd in. Pairs. RHO opens 2C (prec = 11-15 w/ clubs) > >AJxxx Qxxx Jxxx - > >So you pass. LHO bids 3C (not constructive) , Pass, pass to you. > >Is double a LA after a tank from partner? As everyone points out, you mean is pass an LA, do you not? After all, you ruled it as 3C-2. >It's probably just about 70%, but I'll accept offers So you are suggesting really that double is evident. >What do you think? Maybe. >Now read on ... > >Our hero tried 4C after the tank, and made a major suit game. > >np, I ruled it back to 3C-2 (can be down 3 on inspired defence, but I >didn't think this pair would want to go to appeal!!) > >How much of a PP would you award >1) ACBL >2) EBU >3) elsewhere. To whom? The Director? >I found it one of the more blatant examples of cheating I've seen in a >while. Well, let us consider it fully. He bid 4C, which is illegal if there are LAs to 4C, and if 4C is suggested over the LAs by the UI. Most people think pass is an LA, and double, so let us accept that. Now I cannot find anywhere in the responses that anyone has considered whether the UI suggests 4C over pass, but that is a vital part of the process. Well, let us see. Suppose pd had passed in tempo, what do we know about the hand. Opener has 11-15 HCP, responder has up to about 8 HCP. A super-fit in clubs is unlikely - people bounce the bidding with superfits. So pd is marked with at least 9 HCP, probably at least four clubs. You have a combined 17-count, a void, and an eight-card fit - and that is before he tanked. So what more did the tank show? I think it probably is just about right to rule it back, but I find it a lot closer than most people: I think it is very close to the UI not suggesting anything that was not already known to you. What do I rule it back to? Well, I can accept that 4C is suggested over double, but pass? At pairs? I think I rule it back to 3M+1. The main point, though, is that I do not consider this a blatant use of UI. The auction suggests a missed game. I would not bid 4C myself with the tank, but it is not so obviously wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 21 22:14:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2LBDjN03348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:13:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2LBDSt03333 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:13:28 +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 14fgYF-000JJn-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:13:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:19:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. References: <20010320195158.LEJI4360745.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> In-Reply-To: <20010320195158.LEJI4360745.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >> The question is not what a TD decides, but whether the SO permits it. >> No doubt every pair plays what they consider to be the winning approach >> but that does not make it legal either. The regulation has already been >> quoted, and to be legal it must not fall foul of the regulation. >Surely we also require that the regulation is legitimate. Of course. But the WBFLC has said previously that they agree that L40D gives SOs wide powers to regulate conventions, and I really doubt that a regulation that limits undesirable conventions is illegal. -- 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 Mar 21 22:14:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2LBDkb03349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:13:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2LBDRt03332 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:13:28 +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 14fgYF-000JJo-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:13:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:23:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What penalty? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >>From: alain gottcheiner >>At 00:41 20/03/01 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >Amber, 2 in. Pairs. RHO opens 2C (prec = 11-15 w/ clubs) >> >>AG : I'm lost. What's a 2 inch amber ? > >Amber = red, vulnerable Amber = both sides vulnerable. Red = vulnerable v not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 22 04:12:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2LHBFG21572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 04:11:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2LHB8t21568 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 04:11:09 +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 MAA13228 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:11:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA03965 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:11:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:11:03 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103211711.MAA03965@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici > As I wrote in one of my messages : I don't know and have not the full > background why L64B2 is in the laws Book , but i trust the "old clever > persons" who initiated this paragraph that there were good reasons . I have no problem with L64B2; we don't seem to disagree about that. Nobody wants to impose a penalty for the second revoke. We disagree about L64C and specifically about what constitutes "compensation" for "damage." If you are not with me on L64C, what about 72B1? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 22 07:09:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2LK8Lj25739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 07:08:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2LK8Ft25735 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 07:08:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010321201022.XDWF4360745.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 08:10:22 +1200 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 20:08:10 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010321201022.XDWF4360745.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: David Stevenson > Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:19:30 +0000 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] random minors. > > Wayne Burrows writes > > >> The question is not what a TD decides, but whether the SO permits it. > >> No doubt every pair plays what they consider to be the winning approach > >> but that does not make it legal either. The regulation has already been > >> quoted, and to be legal it must not fall foul of the regulation. > > >Surely we also require that the regulation is legitimate. > > Of course. But the WBFLC has said previously that they agree that > L40D gives SOs wide powers to regulate conventions, and I really doubt > that a regulation that limits undesirable conventions is illegal. > Random does not necessarily make the bid conventional. The system under discussion does involve conventional openings in the minors but by altering the system to avoid opening a 2-card minor a random minor system would be non-conventional. If fact a system of random openings - choosing from among your 3-card or longer suits - is not conventional. > -- > 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 ~ > -- > 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 Thu Mar 22 08:51:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2LLp3i28070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 08:51:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from frigg.inter.net.il (frigg.inter.net.il [192.114.186.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2LLott28034 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 08:50:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-6-33.inter.net.il [213.8.6.33]) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AMU31168; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 23:49:10 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AB92372.32DD88FF@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 23:56:02 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103211711.MAA03965@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I believe we made a great step forward STEVE. As I published my thoughts to all the BLMLers I think there can be a general approach to apply L64C - but, IMHO it can't work without the general change of laws 61-64 . I think - not sure I am right - that only 64C should stay in the FLB. I suggest to wait for Grattan's encyclopedically article to learn about the background and reasons for the unfair (for other pairs, not at the specific table) IMHO L64A. And now to 72B1 : it was introduced in 1997 release. As much as I remember the wording "could have known" was very controversial ; some people thought that this is a very diplomatic idiom for "cheating" or "manipulating" , which is a very unpleasant item at the table and in club. "Could have known" means ..."what was in hiers(his & her) brain"; well I can't believe a human being can testify for 100% what is in anyone else's brains..! But if we speak about JUDGMENT , the TD MUST do it - because this is his Job , in order to redress damage. Before I write here another Ph.D. Thesis in philosophy , let agree that the cores/kernels of 64C and 72B1 are homomorph...(sorry for non-mathematicians). Read also L72A4...and L72B3..and L73A...and . I agree again, using simple wording, that the damage and compensation are the main issues of L64C , and the Laws and their implementation should guide us to deal with them , not only the "marvelous nose" to deem ! Cheers Dany Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Dany Haimovici > > As I wrote in one of my messages : I don't know and have not the full > > background why L64B2 is in the laws Book , but i trust the "old clever > > persons" who initiated this paragraph that there were good reasons . > > I have no problem with L64B2; we don't seem to disagree about that. > Nobody wants to impose a penalty for the second revoke. > > We disagree about L64C and specifically about what constitutes > "compensation" for "damage." > > If you are not with me on L64C, what about 72B1? > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 22 10:20:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2LNJwZ07850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:19:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2LNJpt07807 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:19:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-37kafbe.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.61.110]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA21229 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:19:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005c01c0b25d$6ac56d40$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:19:45 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian D Crorie" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke > 3NT +2 (2s, 6h, 2d, 1c). L64A2 says transfer 2 tricks to NOS, > so 9 tricks. Now check L64C: equity was 9 tricks at the start of > the hand so NOS not insufficiently damaged. Final decision: > 3NT =. > > Can this really be what we want? You may say that the Laws > provide adequate sanction if the TD judges that declarer's 2nd > revoke in hearts was deliberate, but how on earth is he to decide > on that except in a small minority of blantant cases? Otherwise, > if declarer can convincingly play dumb, there are *many* situations > where a 2nd revoke in a suit could end up with declarer recovering > from his first one with effectively no penalty. Put me down in > the 'equity changes after 1st revoke' camp. > > Put me in the "equity should change after revoke camp". I don't believe that it does, as equity is normally considered to be the "most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" (borrowing from12C2). The definition of equity does not appear in the Laws however, and could just as easily be expressed as "whatever the TD thinks is fair". If we borrow from Law 12, at least we have some sort of standard to apply, which we need if we are ever going to move toward uniformity in rulings. I'd rather see an imperfect but reproducible standard for "equity" than an arbitrary one. That being said, we are still stuck with the inherent problem of the revoke laws. For purposes of debate, I consider revokes to fall under two categories. A minor revoke, that is one that does not affect the result of the hand at all, will be rewarded with one or two penalty tricks, and a likely good result for the NOS (with the converse being true for the OS). Nothing wrong with that. However, a major revoke (I'm defining this as one that alters the play of the hand, and results in a loss of tricks to the NOS), will receive the same one or two penalty tricks. If that's not enough, they'll receive an adjustment that brings them back to equity. However, they have no chance whatsoever to exceed equity, which is a common occurrence with a minor revoke. So, we wind up with the curious situation where a revoke that does not affect the result is far more likely to matchpoint poorly than a revoke that causes a loss of tricks to the NOS. One way around this problem would be to consider the penalty tricks as part of "equity". If we could award "equity+penalty tricks", then at least revokes that altered the result of the hand would be punished on an equal footing with ones that didn't. However, I don't think that this kind of reinterpretation can (or should) come from BLML. If the idea has merit, we can only hope that the Lawmakers would consider putting it on their agenda. There are other issues that considering penalty tricks as part of "equity" would address (anyone else remember the threads on "revokes and claims?"). 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 Mar 22 10:23:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2LNN1Z08927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:23:02 +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 f2LNMtt08894 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:22:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA14195 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:22:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA04317 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:22:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:22:51 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103212322.SAA04317@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici > And now to 72B1 : it was introduced in 1997 release. As much as I remember > the wording "could have known" was very controversial ; some > people thought that this is a very diplomatic idiom for "cheating" or > "manipulating" , which is a very unpleasant item at the table and in club. Hi, Dany. Maybe we are making some progress. I don't know of any controversy about "could have known," but then I'm not an "insider" and don't know what might have been said in private. > "Could have known" means ..."what was in hiers(his & her) brain"; But I'm afraid I disagree here. If the language had been "did know" (or "knew"), it would refer to what was actually in someone's mind. But it carefully avoids that and says "could have known," avoiding any implication that the actual player did in fact know. The idea is that we can say, quite truthfully, "We are certain your (specific irregularity) was entirely an accident, but we are still adjusting the score." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 22 11:31:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2M0VFY22771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:31:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2M0V8t22767 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:31:09 +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 SMTP id f2M0S8T17551; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 19:28:09 -0500 (EST) From: Ed Reppert To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: Opening lead out of turn Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge References: Posted-And-Mailed: yes Organization: Phoenix Rising User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 19:29:33 -0500 Message-ID: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [copied to blml because of the final paragraph below.] In article , "Ray Yuenger" wrote: > At my club game last night, there was an opening lead out of turn. The > potential declarer's right-hand opponent (RHO) put a card on the table > face up. Declarer saw it, but LHO did not. RHO caught himself and covered > the card. I gave declarer her five options and she ultimately decided that > she wanted me to forbid the lead of that suit. But I had not seen the card. > Declarer indicated to me from her hand what the suit was. > > Should I inspect the concealed card before instructing LHO not to lead > the suit? Nope, no reason to. But see below. > If declarer elected to treat the lead as a penalty card, LHO obviously > would have seen it. LHO argued that he was also entitled to see the card > after I instructed him not to lead the suit. My first reaction was that LHO is not entitled to see his partner's card. Then I read TFLB. :-) Law 54D says that when declarer refuses to accept the LOOT, Law 56 applies. Law 56 says that the card becomes a major penalty card, and Law 50D applies. 50D deals with the disposition of the card (this is the origin of the choice to require or forbid lead of the suit). However, Law *50A* says "a penalty card must be left face up on the table immediately before the player to whom it belongs, until an alternate penalty has been selected." So it seems LHO *is* entitled to see it. Though I'm not sure he should want to. :-) > Your ruling? Does the penalty of forbidding a lead address the problem > of unauthorized information to LHO from seeing the card? I'm not sure. I would think that LHO has the UI that his partner would not have chosen another suit to lead, and that may "demonstrably suggest", when combined with the AI LHO has, one lead over another. If so, Law 16 would seem to preclude LHO from choosing that lead. But I'm not a TD, and I don't know if a TD would agree. :-) Somebody made an interesting point in passing on blml the other day (I think it was there :). Law 54 says "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, *and offender's partner leads face down* [emphasis mine], the director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply. So if LHO's partner hadn't made a face down lead, Law 54 doesn't apply! I don't think it matters, though. Law 53 says only that if the lead is not accepted "Director will require the lead to be made from the correct hand." Still, I believe TDs will rule that Law 53 leads to Law 56 (though I don't see where it *says* so), so you're in the same place you get to with Law 54. Perhaps this section of TFLB needs to be rewritten in 2007. Or maybe I'm just not reading it right. :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 22 13:39:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2M2cjt03945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:38:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umx-mail02.missouri.edu (umx-mail02.missouri.edu [128.206.10.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2M2cbt03902 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:38:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umx-mail02.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id HDCFA33A; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 20:38:30 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <005c01c0b25d$6ac56d40$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 20:46:54 -0600 To: , "Hirsch Davis" From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If we read 64B, we find the list of revokes not subject to penalty. The case under discussion falls under 64B2. What revokes not subject to penalty are there that should lead to an adjusted score? Surely not ones that fall under 64B1 (revoke trick not taken, no later tricks taken by the offenders) or 64B6 (revoke on trick 12 must be corrected, 62D1). That leaves 64B2,3,4,5. Of these, 64B3 (failure to play a faced card, a card hidden in dummy or a penalty card with another card stuck under it?) and 64B2 seems to me the only revokes not subject to penalty that might lead to an adjustment. If this is not a case for adjustment, what is an example of a second revoke in the same suit by the [player who took the first revoke trick that might be subject to adjustment? How in the world am I going to explain to club players that the second revoke eliminated the gain the non-offenders were going to get and the loss the offenders were going to suffer? RE Harris Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 22 14:13:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2M3DlT16437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:13:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2M3Ddt16392 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:13:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14fvXb-0005dL-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 03:13:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 03:11:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103211711.MAA03965@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200103211711.MAA03965@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200103211711.MAA03965@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Dany Haimovici >> As I wrote in one of my messages : I don't know and have not the full >> background why L64B2 is in the laws Book , but i trust the "old clever >> persons" who initiated this paragraph that there were good reasons . > >I have no problem with L64B2; we don't seem to disagree about that. >Nobody wants to impose a penalty for the second revoke. > >We disagree about L64C and specifically about what constitutes >"compensation" for "damage." > >If you are not with me on L64C, what about 72B1? > My own view, now that I've seen what others have to said is: Equity is the equity in the hand at the point it was dealt. 64B goes to a lot of trouble to clarify when we don't award penalties, and as such that list should be followed. I'm not at all keen to get into 64C, which is there, in essence, to stop people holding up in a long suit until the entries have gone. Within that context we then restore the equity that was in the hand, not the varying equities which obtained during the hand. We do get anomalous positions as a result of this, and I have no problem going down a 72B1 route to resolve these. But if you recall I have often wanted to use 72B1 in revoke situations and been howled down. Example, a player revokes, corrects it at the end of the trick (there's a no cost penalty card) and as a result an opponent loses the plot and plays sub-par bridge thereafter. I'd like to use 72B1 here as well. In the cases which DWS has posted I am still for 2 tricks to the NOs on the first example (wtp), and have not yet decided about the 2nd one (where declarer discards a losing club, having revoked in clubs earlier) 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 Mar 22 17:42:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2M6gEY26464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:42:14 +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 (oe5.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.109]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2M6g8t26460 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:42:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:42:00 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.138] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <005c01c0b25d$6ac56d40$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 00:39:31 -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: 22 Mar 2001 06:42:00.0754 (UTC) FILETIME=[32C0B920:01C0B29B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Hirsch Davis To: Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke | | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Ian D Crorie" | To: | Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 8:27 AM | Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke | | | | > 3NT +2 (2s, 6h, 2d, 1c). L64A2 says transfer 2 tricks to NOS, | > so 9 tricks. Now check L64C: equity was 9 tricks at the start of | > the hand so NOS not insufficiently damaged. Final decision: | > 3NT =. | > | > Can this really be what we want? You may say that the Laws | > provide adequate sanction if the TD judges that declarer's 2nd | > revoke in hearts was deliberate, but how on earth is he to decide | > on that except in a small minority of blantant cases? Otherwise, | > if declarer can convincingly play dumb, there are *many* situations | > where a 2nd revoke in a suit could end up with declarer recovering | > from his first one with effectively no penalty. Put me down in | > the 'equity changes after 1st revoke' camp. | > | > | Put me in the "equity should change after revoke camp". I don't believe | that it does, as equity is normally considered to be the "most favorable | result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" (borrowing | from12C2). Equity reflects what the players have earned based on what hey have done. For an adjusted score to be equity it needs to reflect what the players have earned. However, its basis is 'not what was earned' but 'some sort of mind reading'. More often 'the most favorable result likely' reflects punishment. Now, it seems the question has been raised whether trick penalties are an appropriate way to remedy revokes. To my mind it seems the most appropriate way, even though I do not concur with L64. One of the things that puzzles me is why the law would be constructed such that by committing an infraction [a second revoke for instance] that after applying the penalty the OS could gain by the play as they have done here. With so many exceptions in L64B it is of little wonder that L64C should be employed so often. As for a guideline when L64C kicks in, an appropriate condition is the equity at the time of the infraction. For the case at hand, at the point of the second revoke the players had earned the score for the expected number of tricks after the 2 trick revoke penalty [9 tricks] but as a consequence of the second revoke the two trick penalty yielded 10 tricks, a loss in expectation. therefore L64C calls for an adjusted score for 9 tricks. regards roger pewick | The definition of equity does not appear in the Laws however, | and could just as easily be expressed as "whatever the TD thinks is fair". | If we borrow from Law 12, at least we have some sort of standard to apply, | which we need if we are ever going to move toward uniformity in rulings. | I'd rather see an imperfect but reproducible standard for "equity" than an | arbitrary one. | | That being said, we are still stuck with the inherent problem of the revoke | laws. For purposes of debate, I consider revokes to fall under two | categories. A minor revoke, that is one that does not affect the result of | the hand at all, will be rewarded with one or two penalty tricks, and a | likely good result for the NOS (with the converse being true for the OS). | Nothing wrong with that. However, a major revoke (I'm defining this as one | that alters the play of the hand, and results in a loss of tricks to the | NOS), will receive the same one or two penalty tricks. If that's not | enough, they'll receive an adjustment that brings them back to equity. | However, they have no chance whatsoever to exceed equity, which is a common | occurrence with a minor revoke. So, we wind up with the curious situation | where a revoke that does not affect the result is far more likely to | matchpoint poorly than a revoke that causes a loss of tricks to the NOS. | | One way around this problem would be to consider the penalty tricks as part | of "equity". If we could award "equity+penalty tricks", then at least | revokes that altered the result of the hand would be punished on an equal | footing with ones that didn't. However, I don't think that this kind of | reinterpretation can (or should) come from BLML. If the idea has merit, we | can only hope that the Lawmakers would consider putting it on their agenda. | | There are other issues that considering penalty tricks as part of "equity" | would address (anyone else remember the threads on "revokes and claims?"). | | 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 Mar 22 20:26:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2M9Q2A17991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:26:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2M9Ptt17948 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:25:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA07988; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:22:04 +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 KAA21752; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:25:30 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010322102826.0080f5e0@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 Mar 2001 10:28:26 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Opening lead out of turn In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 19:29 21/03/01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >[copied to blml because of the final paragraph below.] > >In article , "Ray >Yuenger" wrote: > > > At my club game last night, there was an opening lead out of turn. The > > potential declarer's right-hand opponent (RHO) put a card on the table > > face up. Declarer saw it, but LHO did not. RHO caught himself and covered > > the card. I gave declarer her five options and she ultimately decided that > > she wanted me to forbid the lead of that suit. But I had not seen the card. > > Declarer indicated to me from her hand what the suit was. AG : the principle that seems to apply here is that, if declarer could name the suit led, the defender could have seen it too. Since it is no tneeded that he *saw* it, everything shouild be done *as if he had*. > > > If declarer elected to treat the lead as a penalty card, LHO obviously > > would have seen it. LHO argued that he was also entitled to see the card > > after I instructed him not to lead the suit. AG : he should be allowed, for the sake of equity if not for other reasons. Else, the opening leader would have made things worse by covering his card. (penalties + partner doesn't know, instead of penalties alone) How could it be ? > > Your ruling? Does the penalty of forbidding a lead address the problem > > of unauthorized information to LHO from seeing the card? AG : penalty card provisions are there to compensate UI. If you apply penalties to compensate for nothing ! ... And, yes, there could be addeitional UI, most notably if the card led is an honor, allowing underleads more easily later in the game. >I'm not sure. I would think that LHO has the UI that his partner would >not have chosen another suit to lead, and that may "demonstrably >suggest", when combined with the AI LHO has, one lead over another. If >so, Law 16 would seem to preclude LHO from choosing that lead. But I'm >not a TD, and I don't know if a TD would agree. :-) > >Somebody made an interesting point in passing on blml the other day (I >think it was there :). Law 54 says "When an opening lead is faced out of >turn, *and offender's partner leads face down* [emphasis mine], the >director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following >sections apply. AG : the French version says 'the following sections apply too'. No problem then. 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 Mar 22 20:47:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2M9liU25642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:47:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2M9lbt25596 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:47:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA14820; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:43:46 +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 KAA08760; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:47:13 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010322105009.0080dd20@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 Mar 2001 10:50:09 +0100 To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] random minors. In-Reply-To: <20010321201022.XDWF4360745.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2. 8]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:08 21/03/01 +0000, Wayne Burrows wrote: >If fact a system of random openings - choosing from among your 3-card or longer suits - is not conventional. AG : in Belgium, a system that would allow opening 3-card majors would be rated rank D on the conventionality scale (not playable in local events). To the contrary, a system that would allow either a 1C or a 1D opening on a 2-carder provided the conditions are not met for a natural 1M opening would only be rank B (playable everywhere but in individuals). Ah, yes, I mentioned this scale so often. Here is what I gathered of it. Herman, please correct me if I'm wrong. A - natural openings, strong artificial openings at 2-level, classical conventions (Stayman, Baron, all BWs, unusual ...) and any totally non-disruptive conventions (like strong raises, cue bids or asking bids) - playable everywhere. B - systems including artificial 1C and/or 1D, the rest of the system respecting rules for class A - playable everywhere except individuals. C - other artificial, non disruptive conventions (2-suited overcalls providedat least 1 suit is known, point-showing responses, relay responses ...) - playable in all 'official' events, in particular all 6 divisions of T4. Generally used for local pair tournaments (the organizing power classifies the tournament as they wish). D - other artificial openings, excepted those covered in 'F' (artificial 1NT or 1M, 2-suited or 3-suited 2-bids, Multi) - playable in most 'official' events. Most 'big' pair tournaments are put into class D. E - same as D, but with Rule of 18 not applied in 3rd hand. Used for wide-field T4 tournaments and divisions 1-4 of T4. F - BSC - playable only in national events and divisions 1-2 of T4. Opponents may have written defences. Occasionally used in big pairs tournaments, but subject to forewarning by organizing body. G - HUM - playable only in division 1 of T4, and seleciton events, with severe conditions. 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 Mar 23 03:11:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2MGANo04312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 03:10:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2MGAFt04308 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 03:10:17 +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 14g7f6-00049q-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:10:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 12:05:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <005c01c0b25d$6ac56d40$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes >Equity reflects what the players have earned based on what hey have >done. > >For an adjusted score to be equity it needs to reflect what the >players have earned. However, its basis is 'not what was earned' but >'some sort of mind reading'. More often 'the most favorable result >likely' reflects punishment. > >Now, it seems the question has been raised whether trick penalties are >an appropriate way to remedy revokes. To my mind it seems the most >appropriate way, even though I do not concur with L64. One of the >things that puzzles me is why the law would be constructed such that >by committing an infraction [a second revoke for instance] that after >applying the penalty the OS could gain by the play as they have done >here. With so many exceptions in L64B it is of little wonder that >L64C should be employed so often. It is easy to criticise the lawmakers, but really it is *not* surprising that Laws are written to reflect *very* common situations rather than extremely rare ones. The normal case for a second revoke in the same suit is that it makes no difference whatever, and it was decided very reasonably that it was too harsh to apply a further penalty. The "standard" repeated revoke is where a club gets lost in the spades, and the player will revoke repeatedly if clubs are being cashed. That does not mean that future Laws should not cover the exceptional situations we come up with here, but I see no reason for surprise that not everything we can think of is easily covered now. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 23 03:38:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2MGcPG07106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 03:38:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2MGcJt07102 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 03:38:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03740; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 08:38:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200103221638.IAA03740@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Mar 2001 03:11:45 GMT." Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 08:38:12 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > My own view, now that I've seen what others have to said is: > > Equity is the equity in the hand at the point it was dealt. I don't get this. A pair gets to a normal 4S contract, which is cold, but declarer pulls the wrong card at trick 2 and loses a trick he shouldn't, so now he's going to go down 1. The defender who wins that trick now makes a lead based on UI, and gets declarer another trick for down 2. Clearly we should adjust, but are you saying we should adjust to +420 because that was declarer's equity in the hand "at the point it was dealt"? If not, what's the relevance of the above definition of "equity"? I just don't see it. The CoP says that equity (so to speak; the CoP doesn't actually use the term) is determined at the instant prior to an infraction, and I think they got it right. (And for those of you who are about to respond that a L64C situation is different from a UI situation: no, it isn't, since L64C uses the same concepts of "damage" and "adjusted score" that apply to any other infraction that requires adjustment.) -- 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 Mar 23 04:51:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2MHoJE18603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 04:50:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2MHo9t18551 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 04:50:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-137.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.137]) by amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 67BB91746E for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:50:01 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:47:53 -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 V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst (Thu 22 Mar 2001 03:12) writes: >Equity is the equity in the hand at the point it was dealt. Surely, this can't be right or we would have problems even with a single revoke. Example: Declarer should make 11 tricks at the start of the hand. He chooses a poor (but legal) line of play which reduces his expectation to only 8 tricks. He now revokes and ends up with 11 tricks less 2 penalty tricks = 9 tricks. Are you now suggesting that NOS have no L64C redress since their equity at the start was only 2 tricks? >I'm not at all keen to get into 64C, which is there, in essence, to stop >people holding up in a long suit until the entries have gone. I obviously can't speak for the lawmakers' intentions, but I think most people would say that L64C is there to prevent a player gaining from a revoke. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 23 04:51:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2MHoKJ18608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 04:50:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2MHo9t18550 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 04:50:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-137.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.137]) by amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6457917492 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:50:03 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:47:55 -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 V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: >Brambledown writes >>C'mon folks. This really shouldn't be difficult. It's a >>straight application of the laws, and if it can happen to me twice >>within six weeks it must be happening somewhere out there on a >>regular basis. > > If it were as simple as that then we would not be discussing it. The >actual Law is not unambiguous. > >>The bottom line here is surely that had declarer followed suit at >>trick 3 we would all rule 4S-1 (11 tricks -2) without even >>reaching for the rule book. To allow declarer a tenth trick as >>the direct consequence of a second infringement is manifestly absurd. > > Why? There are a lot of odd happenings to do with the Laws. Just >because they are not necessarily the way you would write the Laws if you >had thought of them does not make them absurd. I disagree, it has nothing to do with how the Laws are written and even less how I would wish them to have been written. The man on the Clapham omnibus (or the average bridge player if you prefer) would, I imagine, think that "break the law and gain a trick" was pretty silly, I don't think "manifestly absurd" overstates this. If he was told that this was the Law, he would probably suggest that the law ought to be changed. Fortunately, I don't think it matters in this case, since I believe the situation is covered by L64C or if necessary L72B1. In general, I believe the Laws are well written. If you say that there are "a lot of odd happenings" I will of course accept it, although I can't say I've come across too many serious anomalies. If, however, one of these anomalies gives rise to a result which informed opinion considers absurd, I would expect the relevant Law to be reviewed. >>Surely, however L64B2 provides the "standard penalty" (0 tricks) >>for a second revoke, just as L64A1or2 provides the "standard >>penalty" (1 or 2 tricks) for the first revoke. Both are subject >>to L64C which specifically includes revokes "not subject to penalty". >>We should not be sidetracked onto a debate about the inner meaning >>of "equity" which, as has been pointed out, does not appear in the >>laws per se. In EBUland at any rate we should be following the >>excellent interpretation of L64C given in the EBL Commentary on >>the Laws (64.8), and "should aim to restore...an equitable result >>in line with expectations as they were immediately prior to the >>revoke." At trick 3 the defence expected 2+2 = 4 tricks and since >>declarer's second revoke has clearly gained her a trick, NSs claim >>for the restitution of this trick under L64C appears to me to be >>unanswerable. > > Of course it is answerable. As you say, the word equity does not >appear in the Laws, and the EBL Commentary is referring to a simple >revoke scenario. Although the second sentence of EBLCL64.8 is phrased in the context of a single revoke, I can't see the relevance since nothing in L64C limits consideration to a single revoke. Anyway, this surely doesn't invalidate the last sentence of EBLCL64.8 which effectively defines "insufficiently compensated" in L64C by saying " the adjustment should aim to restore...in line with expectations as they were immediately prior to the revoke"? If you accept this "definition" with which part of my paragraph do you disagree? >The basic problem, which has not been answered, is >whether there is equity in the hand, or whether it alters trick by >trick. I think "equity" is simply another way of viewing the problem and as the word doesn't appear in the Laws I have avoided it. As, however, you consider it "the basic problem" here goes. If equity is defined as the number of tricks to which the NOS are entitled by normal play (however we define this) then *in general terms* it clearly changes not only trick by trick but card by card. In this case "equity" at the outset is 2 tricks . When the first revoke becomes established (1st card of trick 2) it becomes 2+2=4. When the second revoke becomes established (1st card of trick 4) it becomes 1+2=3 (assuming that the NOS are not expected to keep Cs guarded). What you appear to be arguing is that, for the purpose of L64C, it might be *fixed* at some point. If it is fixed for the whole hand at the outset, then we have a problem even with a single revoke. (Example: Declarer should make 11 tricks at the start of the hand. He chooses a poor (but legal) line of play which reduces his expectation to only 8 tricks. He now revokes and ends up with 11 tricks less 2 penalty tricks = 9 tricks. Fixed equity 11 tricks, therefore no L64C adjustment? Surely this cannot be right, and if it were, how would it be consistent with the EBLCL64.8 dictum of "expectations as they were immediately prior to the revoke?) Another possible assumption is that L64C equity is fixed immediately prior to the first revoke. In either case, I can only say I see nothing whatsoever in the Laws to support this point of view. >To use the wording of L64C, have the NOs been damaged by this. >Now it may seem obvious to you that they have, but not necessarily to >everyone, and it certainly is not absolutely clear from reading the >Laws. NOs "expectations as they were immediately prior to (second) revoke": 2+2=4 tricks. If after the revoke, you only allow them three tricks, how can they not have been damaged? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 23 05:04:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2MI47t23449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 05:04:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2MI40t23414 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 05:04:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14g9RE-000DMF-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:03:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:02:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103221638.IAA03740@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200103221638.IAA03740@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200103221638.IAA03740@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >John Probst wrote: > >> My own view, now that I've seen what others have to said is: >> >> Equity is the equity in the hand at the point it was dealt. > >I don't get this. A pair gets to a normal 4S contract, which is cold, >but declarer pulls the wrong card at trick 2 and loses a trick he >shouldn't, so now he's going to go down 1. The defender who wins that >trick now makes a lead based on UI, and gets declarer another trick >for down 2. Clearly we should adjust, but are you saying we should >adjust to +420 because that was declarer's equity in the hand "at the >point it was dealt"? > >If not, what's the relevance of the above definition of "equity"? I >just don't see it. > OK, let's change the definition of equity as being the point at which the infraction occurred. Within this context, when the infraction is a revoke we kick in the penalty provisions as appropriate. When there's a second revoke in the same suit we are told there are no penalties, and thus the equity position stays as it was at the point of the original infraction. >The CoP says that equity (so to speak; the CoP doesn't actually use >the term) is determined at the instant prior to an infraction, and I >think they got it right. > >(And for those of you who are about to respond that a L64C situation >is different from a UI situation: no, it isn't, since L64C uses the >same concepts of "damage" and "adjusted score" that apply to any >other infraction that requires adjustment.) > > -- Adam >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |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 Mar 23 05:58:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2MIvSS11330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 05:57:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2MIvLt11288 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 05:57:22 +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 f2MIvHI11881 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:57:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010322134245.00aba710@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, 22 Mar 2001 13:57:20 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke In-Reply-To: <200103221638.IAA03740@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:38 AM 3/22/01, Adam wrote: >I don't get this. A pair gets to a normal 4S contract, which is cold, >but declarer pulls the wrong card at trick 2 and loses a trick he >shouldn't, so now he's going to go down 1. The defender who wins that >trick now makes a lead based on UI, and gets declarer another trick >for down 2. Clearly we should adjust, but are you saying we should >adjust to +420 because that was declarer's equity in the hand "at the >point it was dealt"? We should adjust to down one, using the same principles as in the recent "Subsequent damage" thread. This case is easier, though, because we needn't judge the likelihood of declarer's error; since his error preceded the defender's infraction, we know with 100% certainty that he "would have" made the same error absent the infraction. The NOS's equity position, here as there, is "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity(ies) not occurred". 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 Mar 23 07:13:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2MKDG717743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 07:13:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mirapoint.inter.net.il (mirapoint.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2MKD7t17692 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 07:13:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-3-139.inter.net.il [213.8.3.139]) by mirapoint.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AMI46067; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:11:57 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3ABA5E2C.1B1A11E2@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:18:52 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103212322.SAA04317@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well Steve - meanwhile I didn't talk to any one in private about this thread . I am afraid I opened a too "tricky" and too "wide" subject , or a Pandora box : to change the whole approach to the revoke. Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Dany Haimovici > > And now to 72B1 : it was introduced in 1997 release. As much as I remember > > the wording "could have known" was very controversial ; some > > people thought that this is a very diplomatic idiom for "cheating" or > > "manipulating" , which is a very unpleasant item at the table and in club. > > Hi, Dany. Maybe we are making some progress. I don't know of any > controversy about "could have known," but then I'm not an "insider" > and don't know what might have been said in private. > > > "Could have known" means ..."what was in hiers(his & her) brain"; > > But I'm afraid I disagree here. If the language had been "did know" > (or "knew"), it would refer to what was actually in someone's mind. > But it carefully avoids that and says "could have known," avoiding any > implication that the actual player did in fact know. The idea is that > we can say, quite truthfully, "We are certain your (specific > irregularity) was entirely an accident, but we are still adjusting the > score." > This is exactly the trouble : you (the TD) tell me ...."there was an event when you did something inadvertently , but we punish you in spite of lack of any accusation" ... I am not a lawyer but I am sure even the most extremist lawyering people wouldn't like it . I believe that even you are not very comfortable with this paragraph. Anyway I believe "could have been controversial" - ah , what a paraphrase. My opinion is - according to the scope of the Laws - that if anyone was damaged , consequently or subsequently an irregularity, THEN AND ONLY THEN (again a mathematical formulation) will be a redress of that damage - as much as I remember it was Kaplan's main idea too. Dany > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 23 07:32:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2MKW7k24460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 07:32:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2MKW0t24420 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 07:32:01 +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 PAA18098 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:31:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA11986 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:31:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:31:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103222031.PAA11986@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici > This is exactly the trouble : you (the TD) tell me ...."there was an event > when you did something inadvertently , but we punish you in spite of lack of any > accusation" I certainly hope the TD says no such thing! He should say, "You did this inadvertently, and it damaged the other side, so we are correcting the damage." I'd be more worried about how to explain to the NOS that an opponent's infraction caused them to win fewer tricks, and there is no compensation. > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > OK, let's change the definition of equity as being the point at which > the infraction occurred. Yes, let's. That's what the CoP says and apparently also the EBL directive. Also Grattan's commentary. > Within this context, when the infraction is a > revoke we kick in the penalty provisions as appropriate. When there's a > second revoke in the same suit we are told there are no penalties, and > thus the equity position stays as it was... All OK up to here. > at the point of the original infraction. But this doesn't follow. What does the original infraction have to do with anything? All the sources quoted above say equity is the expected result immediatly prior to the _infraction being considered_, not some earlier infraction. Did the second revoke cause the NOS to win fewer tricks? Yes, of course it did. So give the trick back. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 23 08:23:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2MLMMe12021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:22:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2MLMFt11979 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:22:15 +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 QAA05546 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:22:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA122946130; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:22:10 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:22:08 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] TR: Law 45C1 (Was: Opening lead out of turn) 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 Mar 2001 16:22:08 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f2MLMIt11995 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : DuBreuil, Laval Envoyé : 22 mars, 2001 10:42 À : agot Objet : Law 45C1 (Was: Opening lead out of turn) AG wrote: : the principle that seems to apply here is that, if declarer could name the suit led, the defender could have seen it too. Since it is not needed that he *saw* it, everything should be done *as if he had*. ________________________________________________________________________ Not so sure. Law 45C1 tells "A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played..." It often occurs that the declarer see a card of one defender but the other one cannot see it. When called to table by declarer he uses to say: "The card must be played, I saw it". I can anticipate defender's reaction: "I did not put my card on table". Then I repeat Law 45C1 and ask other defender if he saw the card. I use to say: "I was not at table. I hope you will help me and agree on facts." Most of the time, I think players tell the truth and they finally agree. When they do not, I tend to rule in favor of declarer just because there would not have been such a problem if the defender had not take this card in hand instead of playing it as required by Law 45A and at his turn. I had such a case this week in my club. Declarer played HQ from dummy. Declarer's RHO took HJ in hand so that declarer can see it and put it back. After the above scenario, they finally agree that LHO could not have seen the HJ (the card was never named at table). So I rule RHO's card was not to be played and they were all happy. I hope I am right..... 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 Mar 23 08:28:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2MLS8x14041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:28:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2MLS1t14005 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:28:02 +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 f2MLP0b06170; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:25:01 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010322102826.0080f5e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010322102826.0080f5e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:26:11 -0500 To: alain gottcheiner , Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Opening lead out of turn Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > >Somebody made an interesting point in passing on blml the other day (I >>think it was there :). Law 54 says "When an opening lead is faced out of >>turn, *and offender's partner leads face down* [emphasis mine], the >>director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following >>sections apply. > >AG : the French version says 'the following sections apply too'. No problem >then. Oh, yes it is. The point is that Law 54 says that it applies *only* if *both* defenders have led - the correct defender leading face down and his partner leading face up. In *any other* situation on the opening lead, then, Law 54 doesn't apply, and we have to find some other law. This is not at all clear from the way the laws in this area are constructed. However if, as I believe I said in the part of my message you didn't quote , you end up in the same place either way, then it probably doesn't matter. My problem with *that* is that it's not entirely clear which other law(s) should apply if 54 does not, and how it (they) should be applied. At least, it's not clear 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/AwUBOrpuWb2UW3au93vOEQKISgCg/ONzEUJrnltylgIACUD0f4YjbF0An35q zBzUs7W/nfpBZJqWvJvbdrEj =VnoH -----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 Mar 23 10:36:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2MNZpr20744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:35:51 +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-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 f2MNZit20740 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:35:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14gEcC-0008rF-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 23:35:40 +0000 Message-ID: <694v+RBGRju6Ew1G@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:20:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103221638.IAA03740@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200103221638.IAA03740@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 >John Probst wrote: > >> My own view, now that I've seen what others have to said is: >> >> Equity is the equity in the hand at the point it was dealt. > >I don't get this. A pair gets to a normal 4S contract, which is cold, >but declarer pulls the wrong card at trick 2 and loses a trick he >shouldn't, so now he's going to go down 1. The defender who wins that >trick now makes a lead based on UI, and gets declarer another trick >for down 2. Clearly we should adjust, but are you saying we should >adjust to +420 because that was declarer's equity in the hand "at the >point it was dealt"? Yes, why not? The trouble with this case is that a lot of people seem to be arguing on the basis that the answer is obvious. Now, I know we have produced that argument in other situations, and that is fine when we are in agreement about what is obvious, but it is far from clear here that anything is obvious. If there had been no revokes declarer would have made ten tricks. That means, to a sizeable fraction of BLML, that it is obvious that ten tricks represents equity. Sure, not everyone agrees, but could we have arguments as to why not made on some other basis please? >If not, what's the relevance of the above definition of "equity"? I >just don't see it. > >The CoP says that equity (so to speak; the CoP doesn't actually use >the term) is determined at the instant prior to an infraction, and I >think they got it right. Sure. And to the people that think ten tricks is right, ten tricks is the equity in the hand immediately prior to any revokes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 23 15:48:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2N4lf604281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:47:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2N4lXt04233 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:47:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-38lcl3k.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.84.116]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA00070 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 23:47:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002c01c0b354$57f0d680$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 23:47:19 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 12:47 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke > > I obviously can't speak for the lawmakers' intentions, but I think most > people would say that L64C is there to prevent a player gaining from a > revoke. > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > Count me as one who would think this was not the purpose of L64C. It specifically states that the TD invokes it if the non-offending side is not sufficiently compensated by the penalty. It's there to protect the NOS, not punish the OS. If a player commits a second revoke, and thereby gains a trick, it seems pretty straightforward to adjust under 72B1 (unless there was some peculiar lie of the cards such that the player really had no way to know he would gain, in which case he lucks out. It happens sometimes.) IMO there's no real need to bend 64C into odd shapes when the situation is adequately covered by another law. That being said, I would still like to see penalty tricks counted toward "equity", but for other reasons than the double revoke situation, where I think the need is minor. 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 Mar 23 21:53:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2NAqU927594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 21:52:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2NAqMt27555 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 21:52:23 +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 14gPB3-000B27-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:52:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 02:29:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes > > >John (MadDog) Probst (Thu 22 Mar 2001 03:12) writes: > >>Equity is the equity in the hand at the point it was dealt. > >Surely, this can't be right or we would have problems even with a single >revoke. Example: Declarer should make 11 tricks at the start of the hand. >He chooses a poor (but legal) line of play which reduces his expectation to >only 8 tricks. He now revokes and ends up with 11 tricks less 2 penalty >tricks = 9 tricks. Are you now suggesting that NOS have no L64C redress >since their equity at the start was only 2 tricks? Yes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 23 22:49:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2NBn3J08160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 22:49:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe74.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.209]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2NBmst08156 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 22:48:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 03:48:46 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.63] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <005c01c0b25d$6ac56d40$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:40:10 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Mar 2001 11:48:46.0955 (UTC) FILETIME=[381DDBB0:01C0B38F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 6:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke | Roger Pewick writes | | >Equity reflects what the players have earned based on what hey have | >done. | > | >For an adjusted score to be equity it needs to reflect what the | >players have earned. However, its basis is 'not what was earned' but | >'some sort of mind reading'. More often 'the most favorable result | >likely' reflects punishment. | > | >Now, it seems the question has been raised whether trick penalties are | >an appropriate way to remedy revokes. To my mind it seems the most | >appropriate way, even though I do not concur with L64. One of the | >things that puzzles me is why the law would be constructed such that | >by committing an infraction [a second revoke for instance] that after | >applying the penalty the OS could gain by the play as they have done | >here. With so many exceptions in L64B it is of little wonder that | >L64C should be employed so often. | | It is easy to criticise the lawmakers, but really it is *not* | surprising that Laws are written to reflect *very* common situations | rather than extremely rare ones. If the law is composed to deal with straight forward/ common situations rather than extremely rare ones then it is deficient. In such cases the principle would be reasonable if the situation was caused by the players. In this case it is not the player but L64A/B that creates the abnormal situation where after paying the penalty, two revokes is better than one. And we have those who believe that the appropriate score is 10 tricks after L64C and others who believe it is 9. True, not a common situation. But because it happens the principle upon which the law was written is flawed. This case merely demonstrates that flaw regards roger pewick The normal case for a second revoke in | the same suit is that it makes no difference whatever, and it was | decided very reasonably that it was too harsh to apply a further | penalty. The "standard" repeated revoke is where a club gets lost in | the spades, and the player will revoke repeatedly if clubs are being | cashed. | | That does not mean that future Laws should not cover the exceptional | situations we come up with here, but I see no reason for surprise that | not everything we can think of is easily covered now. | | -- | 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 Mar 24 11:02:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2NNxOf08135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:59:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2NNxGt08126 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:59:17 +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 SAA02625 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:59:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA21310 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:59:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:59:11 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103232359.SAA21310@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If there had been no revokes declarer would have made ten tricks. Well, eleven actually. One losing club plus the ace of trumps. The first revoke takes declarer down to nine (eleven won minus two trick penalty), and the second brings him back up to ... well, what? Twelve tricks taken, less a two trick penalty, and the argument is about whether L64 C (or perhaps 72B1) tells us to leave declarer at nine. > Sure. And to the people that think ten tricks is right, ten tricks is > the equity in the hand immediately prior to any revokes. And the question is what that has to do with anything. I am so astonished at this thread that I am probably incoherent by now. Let's forget revokes, forget L72B1, and go back to a simple case. Suppose a hand is played perfectly legally through, oh, say trick seven. Declarer has two guesses to make and can take all the tricks if he gets both right. At trick one, he gets the first one wrong. At trick four, he tries again, and gets the second one wrong. Now declarer should win the rest, but for whatever reason he doesn't claim. (Maybe he needs a suit break, which he is getting, but he doesn't know it yet.) At trick 8, there's the first and only infraction, and you have to assign an adjusted score. How many tricks do you give declarer? How does that compare with equity at the start of the deal? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 25 00:04:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2OD35V28309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 00:03:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2OD2tt28294 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 00:02:56 +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 14gngw-000Gtk-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 13:02:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 03:44:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <200103232359.SAA21310@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200103232359.SAA21310@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> If there had been no revokes declarer would have made ten tricks. > >Well, eleven actually. One losing club plus the ace of trumps. The >first revoke takes declarer down to nine (eleven won minus two trick >penalty), and the second brings him back up to ... well, what? Twelve >tricks taken, less a two trick penalty, and the argument is about >whether L64 C (or perhaps 72B1) tells us to leave declarer at nine. > >> Sure. And to the people that think ten tricks is right, ten tricks is >> the equity in the hand immediately prior to any revokes. > >And the question is what that has to do with anything. > >I am so astonished at this thread that I am probably incoherent by now. >Let's forget revokes, forget L72B1, and go back to a simple case. > >Suppose a hand is played perfectly legally through, oh, say trick >seven. Declarer has two guesses to make and can take all the tricks if >he gets both right. At trick one, he gets the first one wrong. At >trick four, he tries again, and gets the second one wrong. Now >declarer should win the rest, but for whatever reason he doesn't >claim. (Maybe he needs a suit break, which he is getting, but he >doesn't know it yet.) At trick 8, there's the first and only >infraction, and you have to assign an adjusted score. How many tricks >do you give declarer? Err - your are a little unclear, but it looks like eleven tricks is equity. > How does that compare with equity at the start >of the deal? The same, of course. Equity depends on how the player is going to play it, surely? -- 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 Mar 25 02:56:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2OFtSx21344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 02:55:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2OFtIt21329 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 02:55:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-28.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.28]) by amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 110C21754F for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 15:55:12 +0000 (GMT) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 15:53:02 -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) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson (Fri 23 Mar 2001 02:29) writes: >Brambledown writes > >>John (MadDog) Probst (Thu 22 Mar 2001 03:12) writes: >> >>>Equity is the equity in the hand at the point it was dealt. >> >>Surely, this can't be right or we would have problems even with a single >>revoke. Example: Declarer should make 11 tricks at the start >>of the hand. >>He chooses a poor (but legal) line of play which reduces his >>expectation to >>only 8 tricks. He now revokes and ends up with 11 tricks less 2 penalty >>tricks = 9 tricks. Are you now suggesting that NOS have no L64C redress >>since their equity at the start was only 2 tricks? > > Yes. Oh dear, David can't be serious, can he? We seem to be going backwards. If we can't agree on a single revoke, what chance do we have with a double revoke? If I were the NOS in this example and David ruled 9 tricks to declarer, I would be asking the AC why he was apparently tearing up the EBL Commentary on the laws (64.8) since this decision pays not the slightest heed to the need to "restore ... an equitable result in line with expectations as they were immediately prior to the revoke." Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 25 05:06:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2OJ5RS20103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 05:05:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2OJ5Kt20066 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 05:05:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id 7.73.c19f9aa (25512) for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:05:05 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: <73.c19f9aa.27ee49e1@aol.com> Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:05:05 EST Subject: [BLML] ACBL's position on psychic bids To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_73.c19f9aa.27ee49e1_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 352 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_73.c19f9aa.27ee49e1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yesterday at a Sectional Tournament in the Baltimore, Maryland area I was told by the two directors working the tournament that: 1. The ACBL has no position against psychic bids other than that there may be no psychic controls. 2. That there is no provision for reporting psychic bids. (I was not asking for redress though I think that I should have for an undisclosed partnership agreement through experience.) The auction was (we were silent): 1N-2C, 2H-2S, 2N-3N ... the 2S bidder was, of course short in spades and (successfully) warding off a spade lead. My understanding has been that every ACBL Unit has a designated recorder for the purpose of keeping up psychs for the purpose of documenting undisclosed partnership experience agreements of this type. Comments, please. ________________ Part II. Prior to this at the same tournament (no damage done, no director call), we had this auction against us (as before, we were silent): 1N-2C, 2H-2S, 3N On asking, I was told that the 2C response followed by the 2S rebid showed an invitational hand. This should have been alerted, right? _______________ Thanks, Walt Flory --part1_73.c19f9aa.27ee49e1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yesterday at a Sectional Tournament in the Baltimore, Maryland area I was
told by the two directors working the tournament that:

1. The ACBL has no position against psychic bids other than that there may be
no psychic controls.

2. That there is no provision for reporting psychic bids.
   (I was not asking for redress though I think that I should have for an
undisclosed partnership agreement through experience.)

The auction was (we were silent): 1N-2C, 2H-2S, 2N-3N ... the 2S bidder was,
of course short in spades and (successfully) warding off a spade lead.

My understanding has been that every ACBL Unit has a designated recorder for
the purpose of keeping up psychs for the purpose of documenting undisclosed
partnership experience agreements of this type.

Comments, please.
________________


Part II.

Prior to this at the same tournament (no damage done, no director call), we
had this auction against us (as before, we were silent):

1N-2C, 2H-2S, 3N

On asking, I was told that the 2C response followed by the 2S rebid showed an
invitational hand.

This should have been alerted, right?
_______________

Thanks,

Walt Flory
--part1_73.c19f9aa.27ee49e1_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 25 08:37:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2OMaak03116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 08:36:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2OMaSt03110 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 08:36:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2OFlGF01002; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 15:47:16 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: WSFlory@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL's position on psychic bids Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 15:39:06 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <73.c19f9aa.27ee49e1@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <73.c19f9aa.27ee49e1@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01032415471602.00939@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, you wrote: > > Yesterday at a Sectional Tournament in the Baltimore, Maryland area I was > told by the two directors working the tournament that: > > 1. The ACBL has no position against psychic bids other than that there may be > no psychic controls. And no agreements. > 2. That there is no provision for reporting psychic bids. > (I was not asking for redress though I think that I should have for an > undisclosed partnership agreement through experience.) You can file a recorder form to report almost any incident. A psyche that may be suspicious is a good use of the form; if the recorder receives several of them, he will take actions. > The auction was (we were silent): 1N-2C, 2H-2S, 2N-3N ... the 2S bidder was, > of course short in spades and (successfully) warding off a spade lead. (With no alert, 2S shows five spades; see below.) If opener had three spades, this is a fielded psyche, because the normal bid with three spades is pass, 3S, or 4S, not 2NT. That is evidence of a concealed partnership understanding, which is illegal whether or not is is a psyche. (You might get an adjustment to the result in 4S.) > My understanding has been that every ACBL Unit has a designated recorder for > the purpose of keeping up psychs for the purpose of documenting undisclosed > partnership experience agreements of this type. This is the correct procedure. > Part II. > > Prior to this at the same tournament (no damage done, no director call), we > had this auction against us (as before, we were silent): > > 1N-2C, 2H-2S, 3N > > On asking, I was told that the 2C response followed by the 2S rebid showed an > invitational hand. > > This should have been alerted, right? The standard meaning of the 2S bid among players who do not play transfers is five spades and 8-9 HCP, so it does not require an alert. If 2S shows four spades only (common among players who play an immediate 2NT as a transfer), it requires an alert. If it says nothing about spades, it certainly requires an alert. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 26 23:31:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2QDTK400437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:29:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2QDTDt00433 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:29:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-94-77.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.94.77]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2QDS0v04990; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:28:05 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:27:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 23 March 2001 03:29 Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke > +=+ Naturally I have not seen blml in the last week, so I do not know how this thread is progressing. I would only remark that Kaplan taught me that the equity to be restored is that existing prior to the first revoke. ~ 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 Mar 27 03:53:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2QHn8F08575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 03:49:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from frigg.inter.net.il (frigg.inter.net.il [192.114.186.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2QHmot08571 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 03:48:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-5-185.inter.net.il [213.8.5.185]) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ANB06095; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 19:47:00 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3ABF823F.32A2C852@inter.net.il> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 20:54:07 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Welcome your Highness I believe we all expect your doctorate - as started bellow - presenting the background and the basis for the Laws 61-64 , especially about the second revoke and the "amount" of penalties/redress. And I asked one more "advanced" question : why should we give at all a trick not won to the NOS , when someone revoked ??? My reason is that we don't punish the OS , but you promote the NOS against all the other pairs in that field. What I suggested - no Penalties for revokes - only redress damage . Thank you a priori for your opinion and the background. Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "You may call for peace as loudly as you wish, > but where there is no brotherhood there can > in the end be no peace." > ['The Gifts of the Magi'] > ------- = -------- > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Stevenson > To: > Sent: 23 March 2001 03:29 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke > > > > +=+ Naturally I have not seen blml in the > last week, so I do not know how this > thread is progressing. I would only remark > that Kaplan taught me that the equity to be > restored is that existing prior to the first > revoke. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 27 04:35:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2QIZ4U08602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 04:35:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from osiris.watchic.net (mail@osiris.watchic.net [208.162.108.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2QIYxt08598 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 04:34:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208.167.55.07.stnd.fuwa.net (default.9oakhill.com) [208.167.55.7] by osiris.watchic.net with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14hcG4-00064T-00; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:02:28 -0500 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> X-Sender: timg@watchic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:31:28 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: [BLML] Referring to CC In-Reply-To: <3ABF823F.32A2C852@inter.net.il> References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, At the recent NABC in Kansas City, an opponent grabbed his convention card away from my partner when my partner attempted to look at it when it was not his turn to call. Some mild unpleasantness followed during which my opponent claimed that the Laws forbid looking at an opponent's CC when it's not your turn to call. I'll admit to not having read the relevant sections of the Laws before posting this, but it seems to me that the Laws only refer to a review and explanations. The Laws give authority to SOs to design and require the use of a CC, but I don't recall any Laws about how and when the CC may be used. (I am aware that the timing of reaching for a CC could convey UI to partner.) Is there a Law which specifies when a CC may be referred to? I was under the impression that in many countries it is customary for players to exchange CC at the beginning of a round so that the opponents can have constant access to the CC. If there is a Law which specifies when a CC may be referred to, does this practice of exchanging CC violate the Laws? I can also imagine a situation where referencing the opponents CC is necessary to determine whether partner's bid is alertable. For instance, suppose the auction starts 1S-(2S)-3C, partner's 3C call could be alertable if 2S shows two specific suits, non-alertable if it shows hearts and a minor. If I can neither ask questions, nor refer to an opponent's CC when it is not my turn, am I supposed to alert partner's bid and run through the various possibilities? Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 27 05:09:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2QJ8uW08624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 05:08:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2QJ8ot08620 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 05:08:50 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 94DB79460; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:05:11 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:04:56 -0500 To: Tim Goodwin From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC 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 1:31 PM -0500 3/26/01, Tim Goodwin wrote: >At the recent NABC in Kansas City, an opponent grabbed his >convention card away from my partner when my partner attempted to >look at it when it was not his turn to call. Some mild >unpleasantness followed during which my opponent claimed that the >Laws forbid looking at an opponent's CC when it's not your turn to >call. I hope you called the director. >I can also imagine a situation where referencing the opponents CC is >necessary to determine whether partner's bid is alertable. For >instance, suppose the auction starts 1S-(2S)-3C, partner's 3C call >could be alertable if 2S shows two specific suits, non-alertable if >it shows hearts and a minor. If I can neither ask questions, nor >refer to an opponent's CC when it is not my turn, am I supposed to >alert partner's bid and run through the various possibilities? I just say "Alert" - I'm not allowed to do anything else! If the opponents ask then I explain that it depends on what their call meant. Normally they'll tell me at this point - it does none of us any good for me to explain what my partner's call means over a convention they're not playing. 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 Mar 27 06:17:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2QKGra08659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 06:16:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2QKGlt08655 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 06:16:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from hinckley (sdn-ar-002insbenP038.dialsprint.net [168.191.107.150]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAB16125; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:16:40 -0800 (PST) From: "Bud Hinckley" To: "Tim Goodwin" , Subject: RE: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:15:18 -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 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Under Law 40E2, it is specified that you may look at the opponents' convention card only when it is your turn to play/call. LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS E. Convention Card 2. Referring to Opponents' Convention Card During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own. Bud Hinckley -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Tim Goodwin Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 1:31 PM To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Referring to CC Hi, At the recent NABC in Kansas City, an opponent grabbed his convention card away from my partner when my partner attempted to look at it when it was not his turn to call. Some mild unpleasantness followed during which my opponent claimed that the Laws forbid looking at an opponent's CC when it's not your turn to call. I'll admit to not having read the relevant sections of the Laws before posting this, but it seems to me that the Laws only refer to a review and explanations. The Laws give authority to SOs to design and require the use of a CC, but I don't recall any Laws about how and when the CC may be used. (I am aware that the timing of reaching for a CC could convey UI to partner.) Is there a Law which specifies when a CC may be referred to? I was under the impression that in many countries it is customary for players to exchange CC at the beginning of a round so that the opponents can have constant access to the CC. If there is a Law which specifies when a CC may be referred to, does this practice of exchanging CC violate the Laws? I can also imagine a situation where referencing the opponents CC is necessary to determine whether partner's bid is alertable. For instance, suppose the auction starts 1S-(2S)-3C, partner's 3C call could be alertable if 2S shows two specific suits, non-alertable if it shows hearts and a minor. If I can neither ask questions, nor refer to an opponent's CC when it is not my turn, am I supposed to alert partner's bid and run through the various possibilities? 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 27 06:21:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2QKLAC08672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 06:21:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from osiris.watchic.net (mail@osiris.watchic.net [208.162.108.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2QKL1t08667 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 06:21:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208.167.55.25.stnd.fuwa.net (default.9oakhill.com) [208.167.55.25] by osiris.watchic.net with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14hdue-0006x2-00; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:48:29 -0500 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326151458.01ba6350@watchic.net> X-Sender: timg@watchic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:17:27 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> References: <3ABF823F.32A2C852@inter.net.il> <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:31 PM 3/26/01 -0500, Tim Goodwin wrote: >Is there a Law which specifies when a CC may be referred to? Sure enough, somebody has pointed me to: LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS E. Convention Card 2. Referring to Opponents' Convention Card During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own. Still curious about: > I was under the impression that in many countries it is customary for > players to exchange CC at the beginning of a round so that the opponents > can have constant access to the CC. If there is a Law which specifies > when a CC may be referred to, does this practice of exchanging CC violate > the Laws? Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 27 07:06:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2QL65E08707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 07:06:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2QL5xt08703 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 07:06:00 +1000 (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 f2QL3Gw08158 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:03:17 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:56:25 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Referring to CC Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Under Law 40E2, it is specified that you may look at the opponents' >convention card only when it is your turn to play/call. No it doesn't. The word "only" is not in there. 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/AwUBOr+vNL2UW3au93vOEQLFEQCdEu8/RhwT5O7UPMb+SwgoM0U1YJAAmwZP mMJ0VXgRo/t+r3h9DHYq+mwe =2YOL -----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 Mar 27 07:27:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2QLQw408725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 07:26:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2QLQqt08721 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 07:26:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA13666 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:26:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA26549 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:26:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:26:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103262126.QAA26549@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Referring to CC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Bud Hinckley" > Under Law 40E2, it is specified that you may look at the opponents' > convention card only when it is your turn to play/call. Not exactly. You have the 'only' in the wrong place. We had an immense thread on this a few years ago. It led to an official interpretation from the WBFLC at Lille; undoubtedly the exact text is on David's laws page. The bottom line, as I understand it, is that looking at an opponent's CC when it isn't your turn is neither permitted nor forbidden: it is _extraneous_. As far as I can tell, an SO could, under L40E1, make any regulations it likes as to how a CC can be used (as long as its regulations do not violate L40E2). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 27 08:35:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2QMYef29523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 08:34:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2QMYXt29484 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 08:34:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from hinckley (sdn-ar-002insbenP336.dialsprint.net [168.191.108.114]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA11071 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:34:30 -0800 (PST) From: "Bud Hinckley" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:34:26 -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 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Oops - slip of the "tongue". I guess subconsciously I thought that really was the meaning (using the word "only") - at least the meaning once the play of the board has begun. As they say in soccer/football, "my bad". I admit this doesn't say anything about whether an opponent, say at the start of a knockout or Swiss match, can withhold his convention card right up to the time that you or partner are about to make your first call on the first board. Of course, this is horrific manners and lack of sportsmanship, even if the Laws allowed it. Bud Hinckley -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Ed Reppert Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 3:56 PM To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: [BLML] Referring to CC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Under Law 40E2, it is specified that you may look at the opponents' >convention card only when it is your turn to play/call. No it doesn't. The word "only" is not in there. 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/AwUBOr+vNL2UW3au93vOEQLFEQCdEu8/RhwT5O7UPMb+SwgoM0U1YJAAmwZP mMJ0VXgRo/t+r3h9DHYq+mwe =2YOL -----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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 27 11:03:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R12bS22933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:02:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2R12Qt22869 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:02:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-77-19.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.77.19]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2R11pv18427 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:01:51 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001301c0b659$6f3baba0$134d063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200103262126.QAA26549@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:00:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "We will now discuss in a little more detail the struggle for existence." - Charles Darwin. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 10:26 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Referring to CC > > From: "Bud Hinckley" > > Under Law 40E2, it is specified that you may look at the opponents' > > convention card only when it is your turn to play/call. > > Not exactly. You have the 'only' in the wrong > place. > > We had an immense thread on this a few years > ago. It led to an official interpretation from > the WBFLC at Lille; undoubtedly the exact text > is on David's laws page. > > The bottom line, as I understand it, is that > looking at an opponent's CC when it isn't your > turn is neither permitted nor forbidden: it is > _extraneous_. > +=+ "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play." - WBFLC minute, 24th August, 1998. In simple terms this means that you will not be allowed to use information from the extraneous action, and this is tantamount to prohibition. ~ 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 Mar 27 11:32:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R1W9u02795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:32:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2R1W3t02791 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:32:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP305.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.43]) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01623 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:31:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200103261931220490.0224CC3E@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <001301c0b659$6f3baba0$134d063e@dodona> References: <200103262126.QAA26549@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001301c0b659$6f3baba0$134d063e@dodona> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 19:31:22 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >+=+ "The Secretary drew attention to those >who argued that where an action was stated in >the laws (or regulations) to be authorized, >other actions if not expressly forbidden were >also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this >is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that >the laws define correct procedure and anything >not specified in the laws is 'extraneous' and it >may be deemed an infraction of law if information >deriving from it is used in the auction or the >play." - WBFLC minute, 24th August, 1998. > In simple terms this means that you will >not be allowed to use information from the >extraneous action, and this is tantamount to >prohibition. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I'm not sure I understand that last bit. I'd have thought "if information deriving from it is used ..." would mean that my interest in the opps' CC at an extraneous moment is UI for my partner. Surely, if I look at an opponent's CC after my LHO calls, the information on their CC is not UI until I look again at my own turn? 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 Mar 27 11:58:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R1w7C02824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:58:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2R1w1t02819 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:58:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14hik4-000CON-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:57:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 01:03:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC References: <3ABF823F.32A2C852@inter.net.il> <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326151458.01ba6350@watchic.net> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326151458.01ba6350@watchic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin writes >Still curious about: > >> I was under the impression that in many countries it is customary for >> players to exchange CC at the beginning of a round so that the opponents >> can have constant access to the CC. If there is a Law which specifies >> when a CC may be referred to, does this practice of exchanging CC violate >> the Laws? No. Why should it? If you are not allowed to look at the CC, then you are not allowed to look at the CC. Why does that make the practice of exchanging CCs illegal? I cannot see the connection. -- 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 Mar 27 11:58:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R1wGe02828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:58:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2R1w1t02820 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:58:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14hik4-000COM-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:57:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 01:01:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >>Under Law 40E2, it is specified that you may look at the opponents' >>convention card only when it is your turn to play/call. >No it doesn't. The word "only" is not in there. Ok, we have had this argument many times. There is little point pursuing it. The normal interpretation is that when the Laws permit you to do something at a specified time that means you may not do it at other times. Of course some people will argue they can do it when ever they like if it is not shown as forbidden. However, they will not get much support from the authorities. At Lille the WBFLC said [http://blakjak.com/law_llle]: 7: Actions authorised in the laws. The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. -- 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 Mar 27 13:51:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R3pHZ17606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:51:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from osiris.watchic.net (mail@osiris.watchic.net [208.162.108.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2R3pBt17602 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:51:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208.167.55.40.stnd.fuwa.net (default.9oakhill.com) [208.167.55.40] by osiris.watchic.net with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14hkwP-00034X-00; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:18:45 -0500 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326223548.01bb4690@watchic.net> X-Sender: timg@watchic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 22:47:36 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326151458.01ba6350@watchic.net> <3ABF823F.32A2C852@inter.net.il> <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326151458.01ba6350@watchic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:03 AM 3/27/01 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Tim Goodwin writes > > >Still curious about: > > > >> I was under the impression that in many countries it is customary for > >> players to exchange CC at the beginning of a round so that the opponents > >> can have constant access to the CC. If there is a Law which specifies > >> when a CC may be referred to, does this practice of exchanging CC violate > >> the Laws? > > No. Why should it? If you are not allowed to look at the CC, then >you are not allowed to look at the CC. Why does that make the practice >of exchanging CCs illegal? I cannot see the connection. My impression was that CC are exchanged and kept for the entire round/match. (I recall a European expressing surprise that the ACBL CC had a place for scores on the back -- this individual thought it impractical to keep score on the back of a piece of paper that was in the possession of one's opponent.) Yes, I understand that, even with possession of an opponent's CC, one could restrict their looking at the CC to those times when it was their turn to call. It just wasn't my impression that such restriction was common practice. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 27 15:09:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R59Rd21026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:09:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2R59Kt20994 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:09:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 21:09:52 -0800 Message-ID: <003601c0b67c$0d2fa4c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 21:07:46 -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: "Adam Wildavsky" > At 1:31 PM -0500 3/26/01, Tim Goodwin wrote: > >At the recent NABC in Kansas City, an opponent grabbed his > >convention card away from my partner when my partner attempted to > >look at it when it was not his turn to call. Some mild > >unpleasantness followed during which my opponent claimed that the > >Laws forbid looking at an opponent's CC when it's not your turn to > >call. Oops, that might have been me. A thoroughly unpleasant guy (first board), after I opened on the second board and his partner was about to bid, grabbed my convention card without asking. Yes, I took it back and put it in my lap, telling him he could see it when it was his turn to bid. This seemed to infuriate him for some reason, probably because he was ignorant of the law. Tough. By the way, my CC is always on my right, on the table, oriented for easy reading, the pertinent half face up, with very large fonts that I employ after deleting non-pertinent items. Whatever he was looking for was clearly visible. I don't like people grabbing for my card (which contains unusual agreements such as penalty doubles and four-card majors) when it is their partner's turn to call over my opening one-level suit bid. If the opponent is inexperienced, I normally say nothing. But then, inexperienced players generally have better manners. This jerk was an apparent sharpy playing in the National Open Pairs, and should have known better. Before I ever touch an opponent's card, only at my turn to bid or play, of course, I ask if it's okay to do so: "May I look at your convention card?" I'd like to see that required by regulation. > I hope you called the director. No, he didn't. Thank goodness, as the TD might have said I was wrong. As one did, when I suggested to a young leg-shaking Open II finalist that he should lead face down, as required, after he shot out the club 10 like a projectile, face up. He said face-down was not required, and to my embarrassment the TD agreed with him (but would not take my polite offer of a $20 bet). An isolated mistake? No, because coincidentally another face-up lead, this one out of turn, had a different TD explaining that although face-down is not a requirement, it is strongly suggested. Ach! > >I can also imagine a situation where referencing the opponents CC is > >necessary to determine whether partner's bid is alertable. For > >instance, suppose the auction starts 1S-(2S)-3C, partner's 3C call > >could be alrtable if 2S shows two specific suits, non-alertable if > >it shows hearts and a minor. If I can neither ask questions, nor > >refer to an opponent's CC when it is not my turn, am I supposed to > >alert partner's bid and run through the various possibilities? > > I just say "Alert" - I'm not allowed to do anything else! If the > opponents ask then I explain that it depends on what their call > meant. Normally they'll tell me at this point - it does none of us > any good for me to explain what my partner's call means over a > convention they're not playing. Adam has it right, as usual. 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 Mar 27 15:19:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R5JTm24096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:19:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.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 f2R5JNt24092 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:19:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 21:19:55 -0800 Message-ID: <004801c0b67d$7464bc60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326151458.01ba6350@watchic.net> <3ABF823F.32A2C852@inter.net.il> <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326151458.01ba6350@watchic.net> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326223548.01bb4690@watchic.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 21:18:15 -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: "Tim Goodwin" > At 01:03 AM 3/27/01 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >Tim Goodwin writes > > > > >Still curious about: > > > > > >> I was under the impression that in many countries it is customary for > > >> players to exchange CC at the beginning of a round so that the opponents > > >> can have constant access to the CC. If there is a Law which specifies > > >> when a CC may be referred to, does this practice of exchanging CC violate > > >> the Laws? > > > > No. Why should it? If you are not allowed to look at the CC, then > >you are not allowed to look at the CC. Why does that make the practice > >of exchanging CCs illegal? I cannot see the connection. > > My impression was that CC are exchanged and kept for the entire > round/match. (I recall a European expressing surprise that the ACBL CC had > a place for scores on the back -- this individual thought it impractical to > keep score on the back of a piece of paper that was in the possession of > one's opponent.) Yes, I understand that, even with possession of an > opponent's CC, one could restrict their looking at the CC to those times > when it was their turn to call. It just wasn't my impression that such > restriction was common practice. > You can't look at your own CC at all during the bidding or play, so having a CC in one's possession doesn't mean it can be freely examined at any time. If you have been given the opposing CC, you can look at it only when it's your turn to bid or play, very simple. WTP? 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 Mar 27 16:08:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R67so24160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:07:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6ve.mailsrvcs.net (smtp6vepub.gte.net [206.46.170.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2R67mt24156 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:07:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from bellatlantic.net (adsl-151-202-175-203.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.175.203]) by smtp6ve.mailsrvcs.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA5966442 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 06:11:15 GMT Message-ID: <3AC02E29.E3BE6FA8@bellatlantic.net> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 01:07:37 -0500 From: Michael Kopera X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-WorldNet (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Referring to CC (Declarer) References: <3ABF823F.32A2C852@inter.net.il> <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326151458.01ba6350@watchic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS E. Convention Card 2. Referring to Opponents' Convention Card During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own. So this means that technically declarer cannot refer to the opponents' convention card until after the opening lead has been made? It would seem that there is no possible harm to the opponents for the declarer to look at any time during the play (certainly no UI:) and it might save some time. -- Mike Kopera Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 27 18:36:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R8ZRT24225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:35:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2R8ZLt24221 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:35:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA27396; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:31:31 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id KAA21102; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:34:55 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010327103756.00815bf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:37:56 +0200 To: Tim Goodwin , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> References: <3ABF823F.32A2C852@inter.net.il> <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:31 26/03/01 -0500, Tim Goodwin wrote: > >Is there a Law which specifies when a CC may be referred to? I was under >the impression that in many countries it is customary for players to >exchange CC at the beginning of a round so that the opponents can have >constant access to the CC. If there is a Law which specifies when a CC may >be referred to, does this practice of exchanging CC violate the Laws? AG : even if there is, in some cases, referring to the CC may pass some amount of surprise, which creates UI. Thus it should be avoided. >I can also imagine a situation where referencing the opponents CC is >necessary to determine whether partner's bid is alertable. For instance, >suppose the auction starts 1S-(2S)-3C, partner's 3C call could be alertable >if 2S shows two specific suits, non-alertable if it shows hearts and a >minor. If I can neither ask questions, nor refer to an opponent's CC when >it is not my turn, am I supposed to alert partner's bid and run through the >various possibilities? AG : if you want to be irreproachable, try this : alert, then if asked about the meaning, answer 'well, it depends on what 2S meant. So please tell me first'. 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 Mar 27 18:41:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R8f5L24241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:41:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2R8ext24233 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:41:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id KAA29257; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:37:09 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id KAA25763; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:40:33 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010327104334.0081cc00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:43:34 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Referring to CC In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:56 26/03/01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >>Under Law 40E2, it is specified that you may look at the opponents' >>convention card only when it is your turn to play/call. > >No it doesn't. The word "only" is not in there. AG : in the French version, the syntax ('any player may, at his turn' rather than 'at his turn, any player may') mildly implies that it is only at this moment. The actual wording gives 'at his turn' a restrictive meaning, the second one would be more neutral, only a phrase of time. Is there any similar clue in the Englsh version ? Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 27 18:42:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R8fw924253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:41:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2R8fqt24249 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:41:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id KAA22279; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:41:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id KAA26342; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:41:26 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010327104427.00817e40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:44:27 +0200 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Referring to CC In-Reply-To: <200103262126.QAA26549@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 16:26 26/03/01 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Bud Hinckley" >> Under Law 40E2, it is specified that you may look at the opponents' >> convention card only when it is your turn to play/call. > >Not exactly. You have the 'only' in the wrong place. > >We had an immense thread on this a few years ago. It led to an >official interpretation from the WBFLC at Lille; undoubtedly the exact >text is on David's laws page. > >The bottom line, as I understand it, is that looking at an opponent's >CC when it isn't your turn is neither permitted nor forbidden: it is >_extraneous_. AG : surely, then, it may be UI-creative, and as such should be avoided ? 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 Mar 27 18:44:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R8iFt24266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:44:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2R8i9t24262 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:44:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id KAA22649; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:43:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id KAA28090; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:43:42 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010327104644.008172e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:46:44 +0200 To: "Bud Hinckley" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Referring to CC In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:34 26/03/01 -0500, Bud Hinckley wrote: >Oops - slip of the "tongue". I guess subconsciously I thought that really >was the meaning (using the word "only") - at least the meaning once the play >of the board has begun. As they say in soccer/football, "my bad". > >I admit this doesn't say anything about whether an opponent, say at the >start of a knockout or Swiss match, can withhold his convention card right >up to the time that you or partner are about to make your first call on the >first board. > >Of course, this is horrific manners and lack of sportsmanship, even if the >Laws allowed it. AG : usually, the conditions of contest will mention that the pair must have a pair of CCs *on the table*. And I've seen directors disallowing claims of damage caused by opponents' misunderstanding over a mildly unusual convention which was on a non-exhibited CC. 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 Mar 27 18:50:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R8o8Y24278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:50:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2R8o1t24274 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:50:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id KAA23469; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:49:32 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id KAA03635; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:49:35 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010327105237.008166e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:52:37 +0200 To: Tim Goodwin , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326223548.01bb4690@watchic.net> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326151458.01ba6350@watchic.net> <3ABF823F.32A2C852@inter.net.il> <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326151458.01ba6350@watchic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:47 26/03/01 -0500, Tim Goodwin wrote: >> >> No. Why should it? If you are not allowed to look at the CC, then >>you are not allowed to look at the CC. Why does that make the practice >>of exchanging CCs illegal? I cannot see the connection. > >My impression was that CC are exchanged and kept for the entire >round/match. (I recall a European expressing surprise that the ACBL CC had >a place for scores on the back -- this individual thought it impractical to >keep score on the back of a piece of paper that was in the possession of >one's opponent.) AG : The French also had the same strange CC arrangement. They are now shifting to a more rational pattern of recto/verso CC. Looking at the various CC models in the CC program, you will see most are double faced. Even if there are times when the CC would better not be looked at by opponents, using the back of your own CC for scoring would be unpractical, because you could give it an incidental look - which you may not do. Yes, I would be surprised too. But then I'm only an European. 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 Mar 27 19:04:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R94AM24304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:04:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2R944t24300 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:04:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id LAA08959; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:00:14 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id LAA14659; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:03:38 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010327110639.00818d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:06:39 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC In-Reply-To: <003601c0b67c$0d2fa4c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:07 26/03/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >As one did, when I suggested to a young leg-shaking Open II finalist >that he should lead face down, as required, after he shot out the club >10 like a projectile, face up. He said face-down was not required, and >to my embarrassment the TD agreed with him (but would not take my polite >offer of a $20 bet). An isolated mistake? No, because coincidentally >another face-up lead, this one out of turn, had a different TD >explaining that although face-down is not a requirement, it is strongly >suggested. Ach! AG : it seems like you would have lost your bet. L41A merely uses indicative, and the prolegomena to the Laws say that, when indicative form is used, it defines a correct procedure, but that not doing so doesn't make you liable to a penalty - unless, of course, it is a LOOT. Thus, I would say leading face up is desirable, but not compelled. After all, leading open-faced doesn't disallow your partner to ask questions (end of 41B), so if you are vigilant enough (and your partner is, too) to never LOOT, I don't see which inconvenient would result. The fact that he fired his opening lead is an infraction, but to another set of laws : 73A2, 73D1, 74A3. It also creates UI. But this mannerism is independent of the facing-up. 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 Mar 27 19:46:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2R9jXs24329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:45:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2R9jQt24325 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:45:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2R9jIF16759 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:45:18 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:45 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > No. Why should it? If you are not allowed to look at the CC, then > you are not allowed to look at the CC. Why does that make the practice > of exchanging CCs illegal? I cannot see the connection. It doesn't make it illegal - it just makes it pointless. If you are only allowed to look at opponent's CC when it is your turn to call or play then you are not allowed to look at the beginning of the round (it is not even the dealer's turn to call unless he has inspected the face of his cards). Of course the EBU requires you to look at the start of the round, technically illegal since the "Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play." IMO what the laws are trying to say is "If you look at an opponent's CC at your partner's turn to call you are pretty likely to create UI. If you look at any other time (your turn, before the round, after partner's call to check if that is alertable) it will not create UI and is OK." Certainly this is the interpretation around which I would expect adjustments/PPs to be given. 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 Mar 27 20:04:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RA4Od24350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:04:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2RA4Ht24343 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:04:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-136.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.136]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2RA4Bi15845 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:04:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ABF518A.425803D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:26:18 +0200 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] Random Leads Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I don't know if the story is true (probably it is), but I won't name names anyway. Apparently, in Sorrento, a pair that was nowhere in the B-final and wanted to retire was urged not to do so (although 10 other pairs did - shame on them). They decided to do something strange : the first card they picked up would be their lead - regardless of the contract. Presumably they expained this to their opponents. Apparently they performed rather well during the last day ! Comments ? -- 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 Mar 27 20:04:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RA4Si24353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:04:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2RA4Kt24346 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:04:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-136.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.136]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2RA4Ei15876 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:04:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ABF547F.86B9DD67@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:38:55 +0200 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] Double revoke References: <005c01c0b25d$6ac56d40$0200000a@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > > If the law is composed to deal with straight forward/ common > situations rather than extremely rare ones > then it is deficient. In such cases the principle would be reasonable > if the situation was caused by the players. In this case it is not > the player but L64A/B that creates the abnormal situation where after > paying the penalty, two revokes is better than one. And we have those > who believe that the appropriate score is 10 tricks after L64C and > others who believe it is 9. True, not a common situation. But because > it happens the principle upon which the law was written is flawed. > This case merely demonstrates that flaw > I happen to believe that this law is not flawed, but rather the reasoning powers of the people that do not apply L64C on the position prior to the second revoke. Anyway, Grattan has told me it is on a list that may become an agenda that may become an item of discussion in Bali. -- 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 Mar 27 20:25:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RAOh224392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:24:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2RAOat24388 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:24:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f2RAOWC25928; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:24:33 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f2RAOWc25670; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:24:32 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:24:31 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 LAA01132; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:24:30 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA15785; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:24:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:24:30 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200103271024.LAA15785@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: [BLML] Random Leads X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > I don't know if the story is true (probably it is), but I > won't name names anyway. > > Apparently, in Sorrento, a pair that was nowhere in the > B-final and wanted to retire was urged not to do so > (although 10 other pairs did - shame on them). > > They decided to do something strange : the first card they > picked up would be their lead - regardless of the contract. > > Presumably they expained this to their opponents. Did the pair who passed them the boards know about this? > Apparently they performed rather well during the last day ! Presumably it would be the winning action for the players sat their way at the previous table to put the killing lead on top when returning their cards to the board. > Comments ? :-) 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 Mar 27 20:26:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RAQGU24405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:26:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2RAQAt24401 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:26:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-2initrl.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.119.117]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA28842 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 05:26:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3AC06C6C.78A98660@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:33:16 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> <3.0.6.32.20010327110639.00818d50@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 21:07 26/03/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >As one did, when I suggested to a young leg-shaking Open II finalist > >that he should lead face down, as required, after he shot out the club > >10 like a projectile, face up. He said face-down was not required, and > >to my embarrassment the TD agreed with him (but would not take my polite > >offer of a $20 bet). An isolated mistake? No, because coincidentally > >another face-up lead, this one out of turn, had a different TD > >explaining that although face-down is not a requirement, it is strongly > >suggested. Ach! > > AG : it seems like you would have lost your bet. Nope. Don't bet against Marv on this one; his sig-line includes "San Diego," and these were the American nationals. ACBL regs require face down opening leads at tournaments. A tip for you, Marv: Offer to bet a quarter. You don't make as much, but you can get the action (I'm 4-1, although the last director gave me a lecture with my quarter; I gotta grab those quarters faster.) --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 Wed Mar 28 02:18:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RGHUP15785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 02:17:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2RGHNt15781 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 02:17:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id SAA04421; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:16:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id SAA24730; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:16:56 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010327182000.0080f100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:20:00 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] pre-alert Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Another interesting issue on the problem of 'when to look at your convention card'. Some national regulations state that items that are put at a specific place on the CC will double as pre-alerts. To have this work, you need to look at your opponents' CC before the turn, or there would be no pre-alert. Also, in T4 competitions where the CC has to be sent to the opposing teams in advance (spontaneously, or collected and redirected by a specific board), like the Bermuda Bowl or, more modestly, Belgian Championships, of what use would it be if those who recieve the CC are not allowed to look at them ? Really, the principles should be : 1) you are allowed to look at your opps' CC at any time you have it at your disposal, especially so before the encounter if provisions are made to enable you to do it ; 2) if you do so at the wrong time, namely at your partner's turn to bid or lead, you will often transmit UI, with the usual caveat about not using it, which means you'd even do better not creating it ; or 2bis) excepted at your partner's turn to bid or lead. You won't, however, be penalized unless partner has used UI or unless it appears that your timing systematically creates UI ; 3) if, at the table, you don't put your CC at the opponents' disposal, you're treated as having no CC for information purposes (not for checking MI/MB claims). 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 Mar 28 02:21:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RGLXm15797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 02:21:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2RGLQt15793 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 02:21:28 +1000 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:33:16 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087C9B@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols Reply-To: David Stevenson To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:33:12 -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 Tim Goodwin writes >Still curious about: > >> I was under the impression that in many countries it is customary for >> players to exchange CC at the beginning of a round so that the opponents >> can have constant access to the CC. If there is a Law which specifies >> when a CC may be referred to, does this practice of exchanging CC violate >> the Laws? In the ACBL version Law 40E2 States: During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own. The footnote reads: A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. . . . ------ I would suggest that 40E2 prohibits looking at the opponents' convention card during the auction and play except whtn it is the players turn. I would further suggest that at times that are not "during the auction and play" law 40E2 does not apply at all. Thus, when opponents exchange convention cards before the round begins they are free to look as much as they like, since this is neither the auction nor the play. John Nichols -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 28 02:41:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RGfR015814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 02:41:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2RGfLt15810 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 02:41:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-67-247.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.67.247]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2RGecv15704; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:40:38 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000a01c0b6dc$ce057b60$f743063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:56:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 27 March 2001 10:45 Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC ). > > Of course the EBU requires you to look at the > start of the round, technically illegal since the > "Scope of the Laws states that the laws define > correct procedure and anything not specified in > the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may > be deemed an infraction of law if information >deriving from it is used in the auction or the play." > +=+ 'The laws' includes regulations made under the laws. (2) to look at RHO's turn to play may in some circumstances convey UI, for which reason it is an action not authorized. ~ 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 Mar 28 02:46:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RGkpY15827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 02:46:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2RGkjt15823 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 02:46:45 +1000 (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 IAA22287; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 08:46:40 -0800 Message-Id: <200103271646.IAA22287@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:45:00 +0100." Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 08:46:39 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > Of course the EBU requires you to look at the start of the round, > technically illegal since the "Scope of the Laws states that the laws > define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, > therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if > information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play." Just curious: I can't find anywhere in the Laws that says that keeping a private score is correct procedure. Does this mean that if I do so, it's "extraneous"; and could it be an infraction if I later look at the scores between rounds, notice that we're having about a 53.5% game by my estimation, and use that information when bidding the last few hands of the event? -- 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 Mar 28 02:50:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RGoMW15840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 02:50:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2RGoFt15836 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 02:50:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-18.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.18]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id E58E3F8834 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:50:03 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Opening lead out of turn Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:47:49 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert (Thu 22 Mar 2001 00:30) writes: > >Subject: [BLML] Re: Opening lead out of turn > >Somebody made an interesting point in passing on blml the other day (I >think it was there :). Law 54 says "When an opening lead is faced out of >turn, *and offender's partner leads face down* [emphasis mine], the >director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following >sections apply. So if LHO's partner hadn't made a face down lead, Law 54 >doesn't apply! This seems to be a case of poor drafting.The first three lines of L54 were introduced in the 1997 Laws (they do not appear in the 1987 Laws). What was evidently intended as an addition has effectively wiped out L54 for the standard case! I would be very surprised if this had only just been spotted. Perhaps a correction is in the pipeline? As for the original problem: > At my club game last night, there was an opening lead out of turn. The > potential declarer's right-hand opponent (RHO) put a card on the table > face up. Declarer saw it, but LHO did not. RHO caught himself >and covered the card. I frequently arrive as TD to a table and find that the incriminating evidence has been removed! No problem. It is irrelevant whether declarer saw the card. Was the card played (L45C1)? In this case clearly yes if it had been "on the table face up". I would now require the card to to be re-faced and give declarer his five options. As has already been pointed out, if the lead is refused (L54D) it becomes a major penalty card (L56) and would have to be faced at that stage (L50A) even if subsequently retracted (L50D2&3). Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 28 03:43:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RHhWE15912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 03:43:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from osiris.watchic.net (mail@osiris.watchic.net [208.162.108.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2RHhNt15904 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 03:43:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208.167.55.09.stnd.fuwa.net (default.9oakhill.com) [208.167.55.9] by osiris.watchic.net with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14hxvq-00036u-00; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:11:02 -0500 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010327121326.01b9f180@watchic.net> X-Sender: timg@watchic.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:39:51 -0500 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC In-Reply-To: <003601c0b67c$0d2fa4c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:07 PM 3/26/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > > At 1:31 PM -0500 3/26/01, Tim Goodwin wrote: > > >At the recent NABC in Kansas City, an opponent grabbed his > > >convention card away from my partner when my partner attempted to > > >look at it when it was not his turn to call. Some mild > > >unpleasantness followed during which my opponent claimed that the > > >Laws forbid looking at an opponent's CC when it's not your turn to > > >call. > >Oops, that might have been me. A thoroughly unpleasant guy (first >board), after I opened on the second board and his partner was about to >bid, grabbed my convention card without asking. >This jerk was an >apparent sharpy playing in the National Open Pairs, and should have >known better. This means we aren't talking about the same incident. This happened in a regional pair event on the first board of the round. My opponent grabbed the convention card and said "Uh uh, it's not your turn" in a manner which might have been appropriate for scolding a toddler. And, I didn't mean to suggest that the "unpleasantness" was all on my opponent, my partner contributed. (My LHO and I were silent throughout.) Anyway, I should not have prefaced my post with the story, but rather simply asked the relevant questions. Most of the private replies I received were along the lines of "I hope you called the director" rather than addressing the CC issue. That is my fault for emphasizing the wrong things in my original post. >Before I ever touch an opponent's card, only at my turn to bid or play, >of course, I ask if it's okay to do so: "May I look at your convention >card?" I'd like to see that required by regulation. I always think it is odd when an opponent asks and usually respond along the lines of "Of course, that's what it's there for." In a match I usually orient the CC so that it is facing my RHO to make it easier for him to read without having to pick it up. > > I hope you called the director. > >No, he didn't. Thank goodness, as the TD might have said I was wrong. Indeed, I consulted a director after the round was over and he would have said my opponent wrong. 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 Mar 28 03:43:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RHhUD15911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 03:43:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2RHhMt15903 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 03:43:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA14096 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA05523 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:43:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:43:18 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103271743.MAA05523@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Opening lead out of turn X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Brambledown" > This seems to be a case of poor drafting.The first three lines of L54 were > introduced in the 1997 Laws (they do not appear in the 1987 Laws). What was > evidently intended as an addition has effectively wiped out L54 for the > standard case! I don't think the three lines wipe out the rest of L54, although if you think they do, the case for poor drafting is proved. We have the same situation as in another thread: there is no 'only' in the three lines. In other words, if the conditions at the top of L54 are NOT satisfied, we still read the rest of L54. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 28 03:54:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RHsk315930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 03:54:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from backup.san.rr.com (backup.san.rr.com [24.25.193.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2RHset15926 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 03:54:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by backup.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:54:47 -0800 Message-ID: <002f01c0b6e6$f6d59660$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> <3.0.6.32.20010327110639.00818d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:48:01 -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: "alain gottcheiner" > At 21:07 26/03/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >As one did, when I suggested to a young leg-shaking Open II finalist > >that he should lead face down, as required, after he shot out the club > >10 like a projectile, face up. He said face-down was not required, and > >to my embarrassment the TD agreed with him (but would not take my polite > >offer of a $20 bet). An isolated mistake? No, because coincidentally > >another face-up lead, this one out of turn, had a different TD > >explaining that although face-down is not a requirement, it is strongly > >suggested. Ach! > > AG : it seems like you would have lost your bet. L41A merely uses > indicative, and the prolegomena to the Laws say that, when indicative form > is used, it defines a correct procedure, but that not doing so doesn't make > you liable to a penalty - unless, of course, it is a LOOT. Thus, I would > say leading face up is desirable, but not compelled. Going by the Preface it's a violation of correct procedure that "will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." I would say that is stronger than "desirable." > After all, leading open-faced doesn't disallow your partner to ask > questions (end of 41B), so if you are vigilant enough (and your partner is, > too) to never LOOT, I don't see which inconvenience would result. Face-up LOOTs are too much of a problem when face-up is permitted. You can't leave this sort of thing up to pairs, because some will surely screw up. I think face-up leads should be PP'd if players have been given sufficient warning. The usual "Any questions?" seems unnecessary, since partner can ask questions after the lead is made. Why not, I once thought, just say "My lead?"? However, someone pointed out that it may be desirable to have declarer answer any questions about the auction before dummy is revealed. So, "Any questions?" it is. > > The fact that he fired his opening lead is an infraction, but to another > set of laws : 73A2, 73D1, 74A3. It also creates UI. But this mannerism is > independent of the facing-up. Sure. It was not a UI lead actually, and in fact we got a very fine score on the board. He was just a little hyper from his success on the first board. On this subject, some seem to think that face-down is the option for SOs. Actually face-up is the option, which if not taken leaves face-down as the legal requirement per L41 and its footnote. Face-down is a MUST in the ACBL's TD guide *Duplicate Decisions*, but I can't find the related regulation at the moment. 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 Mar 28 04:41:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RIenl15956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:40:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2RIeht15952 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:40:43 +1000 (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 KAA24674; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:40:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200103271840.KAA24674@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Opening lead out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:43:18 EST." <200103271743.MAA05523@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:40:33 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Brambledown" > > This seems to be a case of poor drafting.The first three lines of L54 were > > introduced in the 1997 Laws (they do not appear in the 1987 Laws). What was > > evidently intended as an addition has effectively wiped out L54 for the > > standard case! > > I don't think the three lines wipe out the rest of L54, although if > you think they do, the case for poor drafting is proved. > > We have the same situation as in another thread: there is no 'only' > in the three lines. In other words, if the conditions at the top > of L54 are NOT satisfied, we still read the rest of L54. (WARNING: OBSCURE PEDANTRY FOLLOWS) I don't think it's as simple as the presence or absence of an "only". It's common in English that when a list is *preceded* by something to the effect of "When [or if] some condition is true", it's understood that the list is intended to apply only when the condition is actually true. Suppose I saw instructions that looked like this: "If your car breaks down in the middle of downtown Urban Blight City and you don't have a cell phone, here's what you do. (1) Stay inside your car. (2) Lock your doors. (3) Honk your horn in an SOS pattern, using Morse code: three short honks, three long honks, three short honks. (4) Wait for a uniformed police officer to come to your car and offer help." It would be clear to me that these instructions apply only when the stated condition is true, and that this wouldn't be the optimal procedure to follow if I had a cell phone or if my car broke down in the middle of, say, Nice Clean Suburban Town. (Mostly because the police in NCST are idiots who have never heard of Morse code. :-) The first sentence of Law 54 looks too much like this example. So it's easy for me to understand how it could be misinterpreted. In fact, if this sentence ended with a colon instead of a period, I'd say that it would be unambiguously true that 54A-D would apply *only* when there are both face-up LOOT and a face-down lead. (In fact, in my car breakdown example, I would have used a colon instead of a period to end the first sentence.) Since this sentence ends with a period instead of a colon, it's not quite as clear---but this means L54 is only one tiny dot away from meaning something it wasn't intended to mean. So I agree with Chas that this is a case of poor drafting. If they had added this sentence to the *end*, as L54E (with "following" changed to "preceding"), instead of at the beginning of L54, there wouldn't be any confusion at all. Just as in the real estate business, location is everything 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 Mar 28 04:50:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RIoE015986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:50:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2RIo8t15982 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:50:08 +1000 (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 KAA24899; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:50:03 -0800 Message-Id: <200103271850.KAA24899@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:50:03 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk LHO deals and opens 1NT; partner passes; RHO bids 2H. This is in the ACBL, where "Transfer" must be announced if 2H is a transfer, and other non-standard uses must be alerted ("standard" is that 2H is natural and nonforcing). There is no announcement or Alert. I glance at the convention card nearest me, and notice that transfers are not marked on the card. I then bid 3D. LHO passes. Partner asks about the 2H call and is told that it is a transfer. If I call the TD at that point, I have the right to change my call. However, if I don't call the TD right away, do we lose the right to an adjustment if my 3D call was based on misinformation and there was damage? (E.g. I based my call on the misinformation that RHO had a weak hand and was trying to end the auction, and RHO actually had a good hand with spades and good defense in diamonds.) I've read L21 and the answer isn't clear to me. Something like this actually happened in Kansas City. (What actually happened in our case was that LHO bid 3S instead of passing, so I wouldn't have wanted to change my call anyway and let them botch the play a level lower. We got 3S two tricks for +200.) -- 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 Mar 28 04:54:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RIsDQ15999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:54:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin6.bigpond.com (juicer03.bigpond.com [139.134.6.79]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2RIs9t15995 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:54:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.51]) by mailin6.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GAVE2E00.GN6 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:59:02 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-180.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.180]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Pungent-MailRouter V2.9c 15/11749107); 28 Mar 2001 04:54:08 Message-ID: <00df01c0b6ef$34a5e460$b4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:53:25 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >DWS wrote: >> No. Why should it? If you are not allowed to look at the CC, >>then you are not allowed to look at the CC. Why does that >>make the practice of exchanging CCs illegal? I cannot see >>the connection. > >It doesn't make it illegal - it just makes it pointless. If you are >only allowed to look at opponent's CC when it is your turn to >call or play then you are not allowed to look at the beginning >of the round (it is not even the dealer's turn to call unless he >has inspected the face of his cards). > >Of course the EBU requires you to look at the start of the round, >technically illegal since the "Scope of the Laws states that the laws >define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, >therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law >if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play." As John Nicholls indicated, you have ignored the words "during the auction and play" which occur at the beginning of L40E2. Thus the procedure of switching CCs before the auction is perfectly legal, as one would expect. According to L17A, "The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner looks at the face of his cards". This means that as soon as your partner looks at his cards, you should stop looking at the opponents' CC(s) which they kindly gave you at the start of the round/match. Yes, I realise that this is quite difficult to manage in practice, because it is not easy to look at both their CC and your partner at once. One more point. There is a reason for passing the CC to your opponents even if one of them is looking at their cards by the time you've located where your CC is (e.g. still on the previous table, as sometimes happens if you're sitting EW). The reason is that it is much tidier for them to glance at the CC in front of them at their turn to bid, rather than draw attention to their action by asking you for the CC. By "tidier", I mean that it gives less AI to the opponents and less UI to partner if the CC is already there. It is not impossible that that is why Marv's opponent wanted the CC, not to look at it at that time but to have it handy for future reference. In that case, it is arguable whether Marv's opponent was acting contrary to the Laws of Bridge or not. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 28 07:10:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RL9ln19064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:09:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe48.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2RL9dt19056 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:09:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:09:30 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.230] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <005c01c0b25d$6ac56d40$0200000a@mindspring.com> <3ABF547F.86B9DD67@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 08:31:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2001 21:09:30.0301 (UTC) FILETIME=[36C40ED0:01C0B702] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke | Roger Pewick wrote: | > | > | > If the law is composed to deal with straight forward/ common | > situations rather than extremely rare ones | > then it is deficient. In such cases the principle would be reasonable | > if the situation was caused by the players. In this case it is not | > the player but L64A/B that creates the abnormal situation where after | > paying the penalty, two revokes is better than one. And we have those | > who believe that the appropriate score is 10 tricks after L64C and | > others who believe it is 9. True, not a common situation. But because | > it happens the principle upon which the law was written is flawed. | > This case merely demonstrates that flaw | > | | I happen to believe that this law is not flawed, but rather | the reasoning powers of the people that do not apply L64C on | the position prior to the second revoke. | | Anyway, Grattan has told me it is on a list that may become | an agenda that may become an item of discussion in Bali. | | -- | Herman DE WAEL A revoke is MI. A corrected revoke creates penalty cards and UI. A penalized revoke is disruptive and adjudication delays the game. It is against the rules to revoke. It seems that it is appropriate to penalize revokes. There is a big law book that strongly suggests that revokes be penalized, but there is one law that says they are to not be penalized. It has been pointed out that the typical effect of multiple revokes in a single suit is that the subsequent occurrences do not additionally affect the number of tricks taken. I can not be sure of the thoughts of the composers but it seems that their view over 50 years ago was that the offense was against the card god for mangling the god-given outcome of the hand and that it is restoration of the original outcome that gives him calm. But the offense is not against the card god but against the rules of the game and the opponents who could be disadvantaged. But certainly at the time the law was written the occasion of this case was predictable and as a conclusion it strongly suggests that each [established] revoke be subject to trick penalty as a remedy. The law does not so provide, so I therefore conclude that it is flawed. 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 Wed Mar 28 07:39:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RLdhr20216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:39:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2RLdZt20207 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:39:36 +1000 (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 f2RLaub04468 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:36:56 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010327104334.0081cc00@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010327104334.0081cc00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:35:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Referring to CC Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 alain gottcheiner asked: >Is there any similar clue in the Englsh version ? Only the WBFLC (or whoever it was) "interpretation. ;-) 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/AwUBOsEIlb2UW3au93vOEQK90ACgueR7zcR5keWeHMVHJZA8BzkZCoEAnjZt W0ymDzp8sopP789t5GiROqxP =pbNl -----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 Mar 28 08:20:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RMJge03286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:19:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2RMJXt03246 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:19:34 +1000 (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 f2RMGsb17974 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:16:54 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3AC06C6C.78A98660@mindspring.com> References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> <3.0.6.32.20010327110639.00818d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3AC06C6C.78A98660@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:17:00 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:33 AM -0800 3/27/01, John R. Mayne wrote: >ACBL regs require face >down opening leads at tournaments. I believe that - but I can't find it on the ACBL web site. Probably looking in the wrong place. Can you point me to the right one? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOsER872UW3au93vOEQIuJQCguiheNtjAXVjDmE3S6dAsihFX5dkAoKZc nx41SU2377TfuF34RqTs1+h3 =edLr -----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 Mar 28 08:29:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RMTas06676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:29:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2RMTTt06666 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:29:29 +1000 (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 f2RMQnm06922 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:26:50 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010327121326.01b9f180@watchic.net> References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> <5.0.2.1.2.20010327121326.01b9f180@watchic.net> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:27:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I always think it is odd when an opponent asks and usually respond >along the lines of "Of course, that's what it's there for." In a >match I usually orient the CC so that it is facing my RHO to make it >easier for him to read without having to pick it up. Convention cards are funny things. In club games, at least, I get some strange reactions from people. Put my CC down on my right, facing RHO, I get reactions from "what's this?" to "that thing's in my way, please move it." When I ask to see their card, I get all *kinds* of reactions. Some don't have a card, some have one crumpled up in a pocket or purse (and when you're through looking at it this time, they put it back). I started carrying two card holders - one for my CC, and one for a separate score sheet. People would grab the score sheet, and say, sometimes accusingly "your CC is blank!" :-) Bottom line, the ACBL needs to (1) design a better CC, (2) don't put a score sheet anywhere on the CC form, (3) *require* that CCs be exchanged at the beginning of each round, and that players keep their opponents' cards until the end of the round - no grabbing it back. Maybe that'll happen, but I'm not holding my breath. 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/AwUBOsEURr2UW3au93vOEQKvtgCfYCKQNdEAO202UlqnIw7BjvDPsg4AniIX 7oUAucFGPdrmxpx3JPtnnI24 =4ju6 -----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 Mar 28 08:46:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RMkMb07277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:46:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from backup.san.rr.com (backup.san.rr.com [24.25.193.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2RMkFt07269 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:46:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by backup.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:46:23 -0800 Message-ID: <006801c0b70f$b3e69740$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <00df01c0b6ef$34a5e460$b4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:43:05 -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 Peter Gill wrote: > It is not impossible that that is why Marv's opponent wanted the > CC, not to look at it at that time but to have it handy for future > reference. In that case, it is arguable whether Marv's opponent > was acting contrary to the Laws of Bridge or not. > As I wrote, it *was* handy, on the corner of the table, oriented for his easy viewing, with extra-large fonts. Hardly ever does a visually unimpaired opponent feel the need to pick up my CC. The current NABC practice of having bidding boxes suspended off the table on a corner bracket makes CCs much easier to view. Those brackets are cheap, and I wish they were universally employed. Another incident: An obnoxious opponent in Open II asked the usual "Your leads and carding are...?" after I made the opening lead of a small card against 3NT. (I hate this common but unnecessary question, WTH is the CC for?) A fairly large font under "versus suits" proclaims "4TH Best vs Suits & NT." Under "defensive carding" there is a humongous font saying "STANDARD" with no other information. When I referred this guy to the CC under his nose, completing his words and turning them into a statement: "...as marked on my convention card," he said, "I refuse to read it. You must read it to me." So, uncharacteristically, I did. Of course he should be asking partner Alice, not me, what my opening lead means, but I guess that's not required by L20F2. I occasionally make off-system leads for deceptive reasons (e.g., lowest from five against 3NT), and don't relish telling an opponent my lead shows something other than what I have. Shouldn't L20F2 repeat the words of L20F1: "replies normally should be given by the partner of a player..."? The reference to L75C (universally ignored, by the way) should also be repeated. I was surprised to see a prominent pro member of the Competition & Conventions Committee with no CC on the table when I was considering going to 3NT over Alice's raise to 2NT in the first final of Open Pairs I (board 21). Giving myself some thinking time,and feeling mischievous, I asked to see his CC. "It's in my pocket, what do you want to know?" "I just want to see it, okay?" So he pulled it out, a mangled mess, and I looked it over. Then I said, "I just wanted to be sure who you are before I make this call. Since you are indeed _______, as I thought, I am passing." What I was actually considering was whether my 4+ honor count (a max) or my 16 HCP (a min) should govern my decision. For those interested, the hand was S-652 H-AK3 D-AK3 C-Q973 and Alice had used Stayman (which doesn't promise a major) before bidding 2NT. Her hand: S-J98 H-762 D-964 C-AK62. So I guessed right, and +120 was a fine matchpoint result. 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 Mar 28 09:06:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RN6Uj07949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:06:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from backup.san.rr.com (backup.san.rr.com [24.25.193.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2RN6Nt07941 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:06:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by backup.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:06:31 -0800 Message-ID: <006f01c0b712$846e7660$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200103271850.KAA24899@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:59:37 -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: "Adam Beneschan" > LHO deals and opens 1NT; partner passes; RHO bids 2H. This is in the > ACBL, where "Transfer" must be announced if 2H is a transfer, and > other non-standard uses must be alerted ("standard" is that 2H is > natural and nonforcing). There is no announcement or Alert. I glance > at the convention card nearest me, and notice that transfers are not > marked on the card. I then bid 3D. LHO passes. Partner asks about > the 2H call and is told that it is a transfer. Why didn't s/he just look at the CC, as you did? Questioning an individual call unnecessarily is an infringement of L20F1. > If I call the TD at that point, I have the right to change my call. I would consider the improper question UI (as the footnote to L20F1 warns) that takes away the right to change your call. > However, if I don't call the TD right away, do we lose the right to an > adjustment if my 3D call was based on misinformation and there was > damage? (E.g. I based my call on the misinformation that RHO had a > weak hand and was trying to end the auction, and RHO actually had a > good hand with spades and good defense in diamonds.) Since a natural two level response of 2D/2H/2S has to be Alerted if not a signoff, your inference was valid. > I've read L21 > and the answer isn't clear to me. The answer is no, you don't lose your rights. The ACBL would give no redress for an Announcement failure if the right info was viewable on the CC, but should do so in this case if damage resulted. 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 Mar 28 09:22:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RNMQJ08420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:22:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2RNMJt08411 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:22:20 +1000 (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 PAA30230; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:22:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200103272322.PAA30230@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:43:05 PST." <006801c0b70f$b3e69740$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:22:13 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > Another incident: An obnoxious opponent in Open II asked the usual "Your > leads and carding are...?" after I made the opening lead of a small card > against 3NT. (I hate this common but unnecessary question, WTH is the CC > for?) To put my coffee cup on, in order to keep coffee stains from getting on the table. > A fairly large font under "versus suits" proclaims "4TH Best vs > Suits & NT." Under "defensive carding" there is a humongous font saying > "STANDARD" with no other information. When I referred this guy to the CC > under his nose, completing his words and turning them into a statement: > "...as marked on my convention card," he said, "I refuse to read it. You > must read it to me." Funny, this reminds me of my son Michael. A year ago he would demand that I read everything to him. But now that he's three and a half, he wants to try to read things himself. Too bad we have to play against so many bridge players with the maturity of a two-and-a-half year old. -- 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 Mar 28 09:24:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RNOcL08497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:24:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2RNOUt08489 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:24:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-75-25.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.75.25]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2RNOQv28195 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:24:26 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <007901c0b714$eea9aca0$9558063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: [BLML] Sorrento appeals Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:22:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "We will now discuss in a little more detail the struggle for existence." - Charles Darwin. <==--==> +=+ Pairs Championships March 2001: appeals - I think ten came to committee. Herman intends to make them available for those that have not seen. Weighted 12C3 scores by the Director, not appealed, were six to eight in number; in every case a single weighted score was settled and given to both pairs. The hope that details could be kept was thwarted by the inability of Directors to give time to writing them out. Apparently rulings were numerous, appeals few. ~ 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 Mar 28 10:17:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2S0HIw10113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:17:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2S0HAt10104 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:17:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2RHSCv00755 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:28:12 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:25:42 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200103271850.KAA24899@mailhub.irvine.com> <006f01c0b712$846e7660$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006f01c0b712$846e7660$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01032717281202.00600@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > > LHO deals and opens 1NT; partner passes; RHO bids 2H. This is in the > > ACBL, where "Transfer" must be announced if 2H is a transfer, and > > other non-standard uses must be alerted ("standard" is that 2H is > > natural and nonforcing). There is no announcement or Alert. I glance > > at the convention card nearest me, and notice that transfers are not > > marked on the card. I then bid 3D. LHO passes. Partner asks about > > the 2H call and is told that it is a transfer. > > Why didn't s/he just look at the CC, as you did? Questioning an > individual call unnecessarily is an infringement of L20F1. > > > If I call the TD at that point, I have the right to change my call. > > I would consider the improper question UI (as the footnote to L20F1 > warns) that takes away the right to change your call. The question is UI, but the answer should be AI. The question may give some UI about partner's hand, and if it does, this limits the bidders rights when correcting his bid, just as any other UI does. As a separate matter, the answer is also a corrected explanation (of the failure to Announce), and thus the player giving the answer should call the TD. -- 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 Mar 28 11:07:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2S17Me22433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:07:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2S17Dt22389 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:07:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt80m.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.160.22]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA21191; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:07:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007301c0b723$be35a920$42a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Marvin L. French" , Cc: References: <200103271850.KAA24899@mailhub.irvine.com> <006f01c0b712$846e7660$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:09:29 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > The ACBL would give no > redress for an Announcement failure if the right info was viewable on > the CC, but should do so in this case if damage resulted. > Marvin are you sure about this? ACBL rules? I just came back from the NABC in KC, and there were two cases of failures to announce at my table that I recall---one a "transfer," another a weak notrump "11-13". No announcement, no alert. In both cases, MI was ruled, and in the other case the score was adjusted using L12B. In both cases, the two CCs had the info showing on the table. At any rate, what good is the announcement procedure if you have to look at the CC every time to protect yourself? Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 28 11:46:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2S1jv926798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:45:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2S1jgt26781 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:45:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14i51f-0001XK-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:45:35 +0000 Message-ID: <4MwwzaA9UHw6EwmD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:10:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326151458.01ba6350@watchic.net> <3ABF823F.32A2C852@inter.net.il> <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326151458.01ba6350@watchic.net> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326223548.01bb4690@watchic.net> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010326223548.01bb4690@watchic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin writes >At 01:03 AM 3/27/01 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Tim Goodwin writes >> >> >Still curious about: >> > >> >> I was under the impression that in many countries it is customary for >> >> players to exchange CC at the beginning of a round so that the opponents >> >> can have constant access to the CC. If there is a Law which specifies >> >> when a CC may be referred to, does this practice of exchanging CC violate >> >> the Laws? >> >> No. Why should it? If you are not allowed to look at the CC, then >>you are not allowed to look at the CC. Why does that make the practice >>of exchanging CCs illegal? I cannot see the connection. > >My impression was that CC are exchanged and kept for the entire >round/match. (I recall a European expressing surprise that the ACBL CC had >a place for scores on the back -- this individual thought it impractical to >keep score on the back of a piece of paper that was in the possession of >one's opponent.) Yes, I understand that, even with possession of an >opponent's CC, one could restrict their looking at the CC to those times >when it was their turn to call. It just wasn't my impression that such >restriction was common practice. The average bridge player in England is fairly reasonable at following the rules to a reasonable degree. They exchange CCs, as required, in events where CCs are normal. They have the CC on the table in front of them. That does not mean they have to look at it at a time when they are not permitted to. To get players to comply with the rules needs education and some pressure. If your players won't follow the rules, either the education or the pressure is insufficient. -- 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 Mar 28 11:46:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2S1jvE26799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:45:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2S1jft26780 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:45:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14i51f-0003Jv-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:45:34 +0000 Message-ID: <+8XxPXAiRHw6EwE6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:07:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC References: <3.0.6.32.20010327104334.0081cc00@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010327104334.0081cc00@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 15:56 26/03/01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>>Under Law 40E2, it is specified that you may look at the opponents' >>>convention card only when it is your turn to play/call. >> >>No it doesn't. The word "only" is not in there. > >AG : in the French version, the syntax ('any player may, at his turn' >rather than 'at his turn, any player may') mildly implies that it is only >at this moment. The actual wording gives 'at his turn' a restrictive >meaning, the second one would be more neutral, only a phrase of time. Is >there any similar clue in the Englsh version ? The clue is that the Laws tell us when a player may look at a CC, therefore they may not do so at other times. -- 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 Mar 28 11:46:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2S1juB26796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:45:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2S1jft26779 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:45:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14i51f-0003Ju-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:45:34 +0000 Message-ID: <+ccx3RAMQHw6Ewms@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 12:05:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> <003601c0b67c$0d2fa4c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010327110639.00818d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010327110639.00818d50@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 21:07 26/03/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>As one did, when I suggested to a young leg-shaking Open II finalist >>that he should lead face down, as required, after he shot out the club >>10 like a projectile, face up. He said face-down was not required, and >>to my embarrassment the TD agreed with him (but would not take my polite >>offer of a $20 bet). An isolated mistake? No, because coincidentally >>another face-up lead, this one out of turn, had a different TD >>explaining that although face-down is not a requirement, it is strongly >>suggested. Ach! > >AG : it seems like you would have lost your bet. L41A merely uses >indicative, and the prolegomena to the Laws say that, when indicative form >is used, it defines a correct procedure, but that not doing so doesn't make >you liable to a penalty - unless, of course, it is a LOOT. Thus, I would >say leading face up is desirable, but not compelled. That's ridiculous. You are saying that failure to follow the procedure is not subject to penalty. OK, next time it is my opening lead, I won't lead. I shall not bother. I shall sit there with a smug expression on my face, and when you are called I shall say L41A is merely indicative, and I shall not bother to follow it, and there is nothing you can do. I am sorry, Alain, you are quite wrong. The Laws give you a procedure, and a method in L90 of issuing PPs for violating that procedure. Not leading face-down [and not leading at all] are violations of procedure, illegal, and subject to penalty. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 28 12:07:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2S27BP27426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:07:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2S274t27419 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:07:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt80m.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.160.22]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA23568; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 21:06:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <010101c0b72c$1c75cc60$42a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:09:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote > > IMO what the laws are trying to say is "If you look at an opponent's CC at > your partner's turn to call you are pretty likely to create UI. If you > look at any other time (your turn, before the round, after partner's call > to check if that is alertable) it will not create UI and is OK." Certainly > this is the interpretation around which I would expect adjustments/PPs to > be given. > Sorry if I am unclear, but are you asserting that you can look at your own convention card during the auction to see if your partner's call is alertable? That is clearly improper under L40E2: "During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own." There is a footnote to this in the 1997 Laws: "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, sponsoring organizations may designate unusual methods and allow written defenses against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to at the table. " So, except when the last sentence applies, you are not allowed to have memory aids for what is alertable---for any calls during the auction and play periods. Related to this, no player may look at any written numbers as a memory aid to compare the scores of 6H making versus a down-5 sacrifice. Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 28 16:50:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2S6nUJ19441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:49:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2S6nMt19393 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:49:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-96-131.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.96.131]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2S6nIv15893 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:49:19 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002701c0b753$14f14a60$8360063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific><5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net><003601c0b67c$0d2fa4c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com><3.0.6.32.20010327110639.00818d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <+ccx3RAMQHw6Ewms@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:42:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "We will now discuss in a little more detail the struggle for existence." - Charles Darwin. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] degree of obligation, was : Referring to CC > alain gottcheiner writes > >At 21:07 26/03/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >AG : it seems like you would have lost your bet. L41A > merely uses indicative, and the prolegomena to the > Laws say that, when indicative form is used, it defines > a correct procedure, but that not doing so doesn't > make you liable to a penalty - unless, of course, it is a > LOOT. Thus, I would say leading face up is desirable, > but not compelled. > > That's ridiculous. You are saying that failure to > follow the procedure is not subject to penalty. > +=+ ".... without any suggestion that a violation be penalised" does not say the infraction is not liable to penalty, it says that the laws are not pressing the Director to inflict a penalty. But the fault is subject to penalty under Law 90, the Director being left to decide in his own discretion when an instance has arisen that he should penalise. (Often it is repetition that influences him in such cases.) Compare laws that use 'shall'. Here the Director is left to use his discretion to decide that an infraction is one that he has reason not to penalise. ~ 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 Mar 28 18:35:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2S8YaI10974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:34:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2S8YPt10963 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:34:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2S8YH619118 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:34:17 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:34 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <00df01c0b6ef$34a5e460$b4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Peter Gill wrote: > As John Nicholls indicated, you have ignored the words > "during the auction and play" which occur at the beginning > of L40E2. Thus the procedure of switching CCs before the > auction is perfectly legal, as one would expect. I did not ignore them. If we accept that L40E2 grants permission to look at opponents CC *only* at one's own turn to call during the Auction/Play we are doing so on the grounds that looking at other times is outside correct procedure and thus "extraneous and may be subject to penalty". We must also recognise that the laws do not grant explicit permission to look at a CC at any other time so the status is the same. Personally I don't think a penalty will *ever* be issued for looking at opponents CC (adjustments may be made if looking results in UI that is subsequently abused but a penalty - not very likely)! Just as a reality check - if LHO's bid is alerted how many of us do not glance at the CC to see what it means (I admit I don't play enough duplicate to be that disciplined)? As I said before this law does not seem to be directed at looking at CCs per se but at minimising the UI made available. Looking before auction begins (even continuing to study after pard has picked up his cards) - no UI Looking after partner's call in order to explain it's meaning - no UI. Looking (or indeed not looking) at your turn to call - may create UI but usually won't Looking at RHO/LHOs turn to call - may create UI but usually won't Looking at Pard's turn to call - strong chance of creating UI So while the wording of the WBFLC interpretation may make it technically illegal to look at the CC before the auction I do not think that was the intent and I definitely wouldn't want to see that procedure changed. Whatever the WBFLCs intent I do not think the language they used will help players understand it. And pace DWS, I intend this as constructive criticism - I know the difficulties involved in writing clear procedures, particularly when trying to do so in committee. 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 Mar 28 18:35:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2S8YZR10973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:34:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2S8YOt10961 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:34:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f2S8YG119093 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:34:16 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:34 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <010101c0b72c$1c75cc60$42a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> > > IMO what the laws are trying to say is "If you look at an opponent's > > CC at > > your partner's turn to call you are pretty likely to create UI. If you > > look at any other time (your turn, before the round, after partner's > > call to check if that is alertable) > Sorry if I am unclear, but are you asserting that you can look at your > own convention card during the auction to see if your partner's call is > alertable? No - opponent's card. Example (UK) Opp Pard 2Da - 2NT If 2D is eg Benjy (strong) then 2NT is a 2-suiter (alertable), if 2D is weak or multi then 2NT is natural 13-16 (non-alertable). All three meanings of 2D would be alerted by opponents. 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 Mar 28 19:35:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2S9Yud23490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:34:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.142]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2S9Ymt23445 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:34:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from brian ([24.180.160.52]) by femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010328093441.DYZP29538.femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com@brian> for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:34:41 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:34:45 -0500 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: References: <00df01c0b6ef$34a5e460$b4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006801c0b70f$b3e69740$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006801c0b70f$b3e69740$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:43:05 -0800, Marv wrote: >The current NABC >practice of having bidding boxes suspended off the table on a corner >bracket makes CCs much easier to view. Those brackets are cheap, and I >wish they were universally employed. > I am not a gambler - but if I were, I would be willing to place a large amount of money on the fact that Marv plays his cards right handed. In any case, those damned brackets are a major PITA for left handers! And yes, I *tried* to get used to playing the cards right handed. It played absolute hell with my concentration during the bidding, it *JUST FELT WRONG* (try playing a session holding them left handed). I tried to cope with the problem by looking at my cards at the start of the bidding and then putting them face down on the table for the rest of the auction, so that I could pick the bidding cards right handed, but one snotty opp objected to that ("he's showing disinterest", disregarding the fact that I did it on every hand) and the TD told me I wasn't allowed to do it. I ended up carrying my own on-the-table bidding box with me to the two clubs back in the UK that I knew to use the damned brackets. Thankfully they couldn't find a rule that said I wasn't allowed to do that. This was an inter-club league, BTW, finding a more accommodating club wasn't an option. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 28 21:44:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SBiBG04811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:44:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtppop1pub.verizon.net (smtppop1pub.gte.net [206.46.170.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SBi4t04806 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:44:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust15.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.28.105.15]) by smtppop1pub.verizon.net with SMTP for ; id FAA84584210 Wed, 28 Mar 2001 05:37:04 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <043401c0b77c$87ac0800$0f691c3f@mike> From: "mike dodson" To: Subject: [BLML] cancelled concession Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 03:44:22 -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 In a recent club game I was charged with ruling for the local player. I want to check if I'm off base so let me have it if I deserve it. STAC club game, mostly the regulars playing but boards duplicated over a three state area and overall awards given. East is well known but from out of town, incidentally owner and frequent director of a large club. I'm called to the table and after some dispute establish this as the end position: S K95 S J S Q86 H xx H xxx Spades are trump after a transfer auction, declarer leads a heart, ruffed with the 5 and over ruffed by East. East has lost track of the spade jack and concedes the last two tricks to dummy showing his hand. West objects, shows his hand and after some heat the director is called. I rule L68b, no concession has occurred but the UI of seeing partners jack means that leading the Queen of spades is the non-suggested logical alternative for a player who thinks the position is futile even though it is obviously a no hope play. Dummy gets the last two tricks. Was this too harsh? Should I have called all the defender's cards penalty cards and let declarer require the favorable play? Suppose the objection had not been raised immediately but a few moments later. Now L71c (implausible concession) requires a different standard, "any normal play" and the footnote. Should I have used this since West showed his hand? Would the ruling be different? Thanks for the input. Mike Dodson -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 28 21:46:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SBkp404875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:46:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SBkit04868 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:46:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA20346; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:42:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA25173; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:46:17 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010328134919.0080fbc0@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 Mar 2001 13:49:19 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010327110639.00818d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <5.0.2.1.2.20010326131136.01b89ec0@watchic.net> <3.0.6.32.20010327110639.00818d50@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 17:11 27/03/01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >>The fact that he fired his opening lead is an infraction, but to another >>set of laws : 73A2, 73D1, 74A3. It also creates UI. But this mannerism is >>independent of the facing-up. > >I doubt you'd get a ruling based on those laws, either, around here. >Certainly not at club level. If I was directing at club level, and I saw a player fire a lead, and it appears that it is a singleton, and partner plays the suit back while having a LA, I would adjust. Basic UI case. 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 Mar 29 00:06:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SE50G19867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:05:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SE4lt19851 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:04:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iGYz-000CM4-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:04:41 +0100 Message-ID: <5CsK5UDK5ew6EwWq@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:59:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <010101c0b72c$1c75cc60$42a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> >> > IMO what the laws are trying to say is "If you look at an opponent's >> > CC at >> > your partner's turn to call you are pretty likely to create UI. If you >> > look at any other time (your turn, before the round, after partner's >> > call to check if that is alertable) > >> Sorry if I am unclear, but are you asserting that you can look at your >> own convention card during the auction to see if your partner's call is >> alertable? > >No - opponent's card. Example (UK) > >Opp Pard >2Da - 2NT > >If 2D is eg Benjy (strong) then 2NT is a 2-suiter (alertable), if 2D is >weak or multi then 2NT is natural 13-16 (non-alertable). All three >meanings of 2D would be alerted by opponents. > >Tim West-Meads > You alert. When asked you tell him just what you've written above. wtp? -- 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 Mar 29 00:09:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SE8rK20096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:08:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SE8kt20085 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:08:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iGct-000Cm6-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:08:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:03:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] cancelled concession References: <043401c0b77c$87ac0800$0f691c3f@mike> In-Reply-To: <043401c0b77c$87ac0800$0f691c3f@mike> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <043401c0b77c$87ac0800$0f691c3f@mike>, mike dodson writes >In a recent club game I was charged with ruling >for the local player. >I want to check if I'm off base so let me have it >if I deserve it. > >STAC club game, mostly the regulars playing but >boards duplicated over >a three state area and overall awards given. East >is well known but from > out of town, incidentally owner and frequent >director of a large club. > >I'm called to the table and after some dispute >establish this as the >end position: > > S K95 >S J S Q86 >H xx > H xxx > >Spades are trump after a transfer auction, >declarer leads a heart, ruffed > with the 5 and over ruffed by East. East has lost >track of the spade jack > and concedes the last two tricks to dummy showing >his hand. West > objects, shows his hand and after some heat the >director is called. > >I rule L68b, no concession has occurred but the UI >of seeing partners jack > means that leading the Queen of spades is the >non-suggested logical > alternative for a player who thinks the position >is futile even though it is > obviously a no hope play. Dummy gets the last two >tricks. I would rule this way. This is a time for reading the words out of the LawBook to the players, shrugging one's shoulders and saying "What else can I do - it's perfectly clear" > >Was this too harsh? Should I have called all the >defender's cards penalty > cards and let declarer require the favorable >play? > >Suppose the objection had not been raised >immediately but a few > moments later. Now L71c (implausible concession) >requires a different > standard, "any normal play" and the footnote. >Should I have used this > since West showed his hand? Would the ruling be >different? > >Thanks for the input. > >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/ -- 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 Mar 29 00:57:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SEvVo22460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:57:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SEvNt22449 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:57:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10133 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:57:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA156561439; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:57:19 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:57:17 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:57:17 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLMLrs, E S 2NT 2D TD called On N-S CCs, 2D/1NT is conventional (both majors) but 3D/2NT is natural. Law 27B2: If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid may have been conventional.... the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. I am not sure to understand the first part of the above sentence: "If the insufficient bid may have been conventional". How an insufficent bid (as 2D above) may be conventional ? After a 2NT opening, N-S cannot have the agreement that this insufficient 2D bid is for both majors. In the above case, does the TD have to take care that S could have bid 2D (conventional), thinking the opening was 1NT? If yes, does the TD have to ask N what 2D could mean or rule without asking ? Your ruling please. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 02:06:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SG6In01403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:06:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SG68t01345 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:06:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id SAA23805; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:05:37 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id SAA24332; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:05:41 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010328180843.00819430@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 Mar 2001 18:08:43 +0200 To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid 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 09:57 28/03/01 -0500, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, > > E S > 2NT 2D TD called > >On N-S CCs, 2D/1NT is conventional (both majors) but 3D/2NT >is natural. > >Law 27B2: If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient >bid may have been conventional.... the offender's partner must >pass whenever it is his turn to call. > >I am not sure to understand the first part of the above sentence: >"If the insufficient bid may have been conventional". How an >insufficent bid (as 2D above) may be conventional ? After a 2NT >opening, N-S cannot have the agreement that this insufficient >2D bid is for both majors. > >In the above case, does the TD have to take care that S could >have bid 2D (conventional), thinking the opening was 1NT? AG : I would consider my duty to establish what was South's error. The sentence 'the insufficient bid may have been conventional' applies to the bid South thought to be making. I'd take him away to the table and ask him. Several cases might happen : - he didn't see the opening. The question is : is a 2D opening conventional in NS's system ? - he did see a 1NT opening (or 2C). Question : is 2D conventional over 1NT (or 2C)? - he pulled the wrong card (2D in lieu of 3D) and didn't realize. No more question. Only 'would 3D be conventional ?' Yes, this means it is in South's interst to claim he took the wrong card out. But it is only plausible when he does indeed hold diamonds. If he holds majors, he will have a hard time trying to convince me. That's what the regulation is for. To allow South to correct 2D to 3D without penalty, if he just pulled out the wrong card. But, if South had no natural 3D overcall, then his 'error' conld benefit him, thus the more severe penalty. And if South bids 2D, then 'oops, I thought you opened 2 *clubs* , check what 2C-2D would have meant. 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 Mar 29 02:08:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SG8fJ01996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:08:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SG8Yt01988 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:08:35 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:07:01 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:06:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, > > E S > 2NT 2D TD called > >On N-S CCs, 2D/1NT is conventional (both majors) but 3D/2NT >is natural. > >Law 27B2: If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient >bid may have been conventional.... the offender's partner must >pass whenever it is his turn to call. > >I am not sure to understand the first part of the above sentence: >"If the insufficient bid may have been conventional". How an >insufficent bid (as 2D above) may be conventional ? After a 2NT >opening, N-S cannot have the agreement that this insufficient >2D bid is for both majors. > >In the above case, does the TD have to take care that S could >have bid 2D (conventional), thinking the opening was 1NT? > >If yes, does the TD have to ask N what 2D could mean or >rule without asking ? > >Your ruling please. > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City TD should query South about his bid (off the table, of course - nobody has a right to this information). You cannot ask North, because he cannot know what South was thinking when he made his insufficient bid, and it's that information you are looking for. Assuming he didn't grab the wrong bid, which can be corrected without penalty (25A), this information from South defines the next action to be taken. If, for example, South thought that East opened 1NT, you may assume that 2D would have been conventional. But another possibility could be that South overlooked the 2NT opening bid, and that NS happen to play their 2D opening as natural. In that case you would have to regard 2D as natural. In case you cannot determine which is the case, assume the worst (2D is conventional). -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 02:32:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SGKda02572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:20:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r11.mx.aol.com (imo-r11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SGKWt02562 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:20:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from AlanLeBendig@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id p.27.1302ee7f (9726) for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:19:55 -0500 (EST) From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com Message-ID: <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:19:54 EST Subject: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_27.1302ee7f.27f3692a_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_27.1302ee7f.27f3692a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I thought some might be interested in reading this article about John Blubaugh and some of the evidence against him. I know there are many doubts... http://www.dmagazine.com/magazine/legends0301.shtml Take care, Alan LeBendig --part1_27.1302ee7f.27f3692a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I thought some might be interested in reading this article about John
Blubaugh and some of the evidence against him.  I know there are many
doubts...

http://www.dmagazine.com/magazine/legends0301.shtml

Take care,
Alan LeBendig
--part1_27.1302ee7f.27f3692a_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 Mar 29 02:51:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SGcUV03434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:38:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SGcMt03423 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:38:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id 7.3f.12ad94fb (9251) for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:37:12 -0500 (EST) From: RCraigH@aol.com Message-ID: <3f.12ad94fb.27f36d37@aol.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:37:11 EST Subject: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid -- Both bids conventional but consistent To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3f.12ad94fb.27f36d37_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_3f.12ad94fb.27f36d37_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What happens if the 2D bid over 1NT and over 2NT are BOTH conventional AND consistent? That is, if both are for the majors, does the wording of the law make bidding 3D over 2NT a problem? It would seem to. Craig Hemphill --part1_3f.12ad94fb.27f36d37_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What happens if the 2D bid over 1NT and over 2NT are BOTH conventional AND
consistent?  That is, if both are for the majors, does the wording of the law
make bidding 3D over 2NT a problem?  It would seem to.

Craig Hemphill
--part1_3f.12ad94fb.27f36d37_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 Mar 29 03:50:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SHVFC06705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:31:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SHV8t06666 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:31:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:23:06 -0800 Message-ID: <001b01c0b7ab$a50f2e20$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200103271850.KAA24899@mailhub.irvine.com> <006f01c0b712$846e7660$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <01032717281202.00600@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:17:40 -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 J Grabiner wrote: > On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > LHO deals and opens 1NT; partner passes; RHO bids 2H. This is in the > > > ACBL, where "Transfer" must be announced if 2H is a transfer, and > > > other non-standard uses must be alerted ("standard" is that 2H is > > > natural and nonforcing). There is no announcement or Alert. I glance > > > at the convention card nearest me, and notice that transfers are not > > > marked on the card. I then bid 3D. LHO passes. Partner asks about > > > the 2H call and is told that it is a transfer. > > > > Why didn't s/he just look at the CC, as you did? Questioning an > > individual call unnecessarily is an infringement of L20F1. > > > > > If I call the TD at that point, I have the right to change my call. > > > > I would consider the improper question UI (as the footnote to L20F1 > > warns) that takes away the right to change your call. > > The question is UI, but the answer should be AI. Isn't information that is normally authorized unauthorized when illegally obtained? If I am about to overcall and a kibitzer reminds me that the opponents are playing penalty doubles, may I make use of that information if I didn't have it before? 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 Mar 29 04:10:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SHwZC11279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:58:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SHwTt11275 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:58:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:53:10 -0800 Message-ID: <002101c0b7af$d8785b20$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200103271850.KAA24899@mailhub.irvine.com> <006f01c0b712$846e7660$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <007301c0b723$be35a920$42a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:42:48 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Jerry Fusselman" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > The ACBL would give no > > redress for an Announcement failure if the right info was viewable on > > the CC, but should do so in this case if damage resulted. > > > > Marvin are you sure about this? ACBL rules? I just came back from the NABC > in KC, and there were two cases of failures to announce at my table that I > recall---one a "transfer," another a weak notrump "11-13". No announcement, > no alert. In both cases, MI was ruled, and in the other case the score was > adjusted using L12B. In both cases, the two CCs had the info showing on the > table. A ruling depends on whether there is really MI, i.e., the opponent was truly ignorant of the meaning of the call involved. The ACBL says: "...an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation." Suppose I pass an unAnnounced 2D transfer holding a good diamond suit that is worth a slightly risky 3D overcall. Later I claim MI when I see the overcall would have worked well. I will for sure get no redress from an ACBL TD if the transfer understanding was clearly shown on the in-view opposing CC, and probably no redress under any circumstances. An inexperienced player would probably get redress. No Announcement of a weak notrump is different. Transfers are near-universal, but the weak notrump is not. Even I would probably get redress if I pass an unAnnounced weak notrump with a doubling hand. > > At any rate, what good is the announcement procedure if you have to look at > the CC every time to protect yourself? According to the ACBL regulation, it is only "players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that opponents have neglected to Alert [or Announce, presumably--mlf] a special agreement" who are expected to "protect themselves." In sum, MI from Alert/Announcement mistakes is not treated as MI if an experienced player should have been aware of the actual partnership agreement. Unfortunately, this principle is sometimes being applied in two incorrect ways: (1) Inexperienced players do not get redress when they should, and (2) Experienced players are expected to (illegally) get the MI corrected for partner's benefit. 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 Mar 29 04:17:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SIHIZ11312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 04:17:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SIHBt11308 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 04:17:12 +1000 (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 KAA12176; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:17:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200103281817.KAA12176@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:42:48 PST." <002101c0b7af$d8785b20$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:17:06 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > Suppose I pass an unAnnounced 2D transfer holding a good diamond suit > that is worth a slightly risky 3D overcall. Later I claim MI when I see > the overcall would have worked well. I will for sure get no redress from > an ACBL TD if the transfer understanding was clearly shown on the > in-view opposing CC, and probably no redress under any > circumstances. . . . Now I'm confused. Earlier in the thread, you said that we should look at the CC instead of asking a question. Now you're saying that we'd get no redress if the CC is clearly marked, which is consistent; but you're also implying that we'd get no redress "under any circumstances", i.e. even if the CC is *not* clearly marked or is mismarked (as it was in the situation I faced)!!! So if we're not supposed to ask a question, just how are we experienced players supposed to protect ourselves? Or are we just supposed to assume in this case that if I have a good diamond suit, then 2D *must* be a transfer, and thus take a bad result in the event that they were giving correct information and the 2D bidder has a bunch of diamonds? That can't be right. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 04:35:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SIZXg11336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 04:35:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SIZRt11332 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 04:35:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP097.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.57]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22316 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:35:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200103281234470710.00A6D3E3@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> References: <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:34:47 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >I thought some might be interested in reading this article about John >Blubaugh and some of the evidence against him. I know there are many >doubts... Also this article from the Kansas City Star, published during the recent nationals there. http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat,local/377539c0.323,.html 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 Mar 29 04:40:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SIehJ11349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 04:40:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SIebt11345 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 04:40:38 +1000 (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 KAA12762; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:40:33 -0800 Message-Id: <200103281840.KAA12762@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:57:17 EST." Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:40:32 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval Du Breuil wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > E S > 2NT 2D TD called > > On N-S CCs, 2D/1NT is conventional (both majors) but 3D/2NT > is natural. > > Law 27B2: If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient > bid may have been conventional.... the offender's partner must > pass whenever it is his turn to call. > > I am not sure to understand the first part of the above sentence: > "If the insufficient bid may have been conventional". How an > insufficent bid (as 2D above) may be conventional ? After a 2NT > opening, N-S cannot have the agreement that this insufficient > 2D bid is for both majors. We've gone over this before on BLML, and I think the consensus was that this phrasing makes no sense and needs to be redone. I'd vote for a definition that says that an insufficient bid is deemed to be "potentially conventional" if this condition holds: There is a legal auction in which the previous bid(*) is changed either to a lower bid in the same denomination or to a pass, and the insufficient bid would be sufficient and conventional in this auction. It may be necessary to allow the Director to deem some (rare) insufficient bids that don't meet this condition to be "potentially conventional". (*) I'm using the word "bid" deliberately here, as opposed to "call". Thus, Law 27B2 would apply if 2D would be conventional in either the auction pass-2D or 1NT-2D. Of course, the correct response to those who believe this would result in a too-draconian penalty is some cases is: DON'T MAKE INSUFFICIENT BIDS. -- 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 Mar 29 05:11:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SJAiO18106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 05:10:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SJAct18073 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 05:10:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:11:09 -0800 Message-ID: <006901c0b7ba$bdf62880$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <00df01c0b6ef$34a5e460$b4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006801c0b70f$b3e69740$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:09:02 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > Marv wrote: > > >The current NABC > >practice of having bidding boxes suspended off the table on a corner > >bracket makes CCs much easier to view. Those brackets are cheap, and I > >wish they were universally employed. > > > I am not a gambler - but if I were, I would be willing to place a > large amount of money on the fact that Marv plays his cards right > handed. In any case, those damned brackets are a major PITA for > left handers! Yes, right-handed. But I normally place an unbracketed bidding box on my left, where it should be, close to where the first call will be placed. Why do people want to carry the cards further than is necessary? :)) > > And yes, I *tried* to get used to playing the cards right handed. > It played absolute hell with my concentration during the bidding, > it *JUST FELT WRONG* (try playing a session holding them left > handed). Do you also find it uncomfortable that the bidding cards themselves are "right-handed"? I understand that left-handed bidding boxes are available. IMO left-handed bidding boxes (i.e., with left-handed cards) should be available in any game where bidding boxes are used. It pains me to watch left-handers twisting their wrists to place calls correctly. > > I tried to cope with the problem by looking at my cards at the > start of the bidding and then putting them face down on the table > for the rest of the auction, so that I could pick the bidding > cards right handed, but one snotty opp objected to that ("he's > showing disinterest", disregarding the fact that I did it on > every hand) and the TD told me I wasn't allowed to do it. I ended > up carrying my own on-the-table bidding box with me to the two > clubs back in the UK that I knew to use the damned brackets. > Thankfully they couldn't find a rule that said I wasn't allowed > to do that. > Good. I guess that's the solution for left-handers, but they should have left-handed bidding boxes readily available for people like 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 Thu Mar 29 06:31:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SKV0U14560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 06:31:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SKUst14524 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 06:30:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:31:27 -0800 Message-ID: <008901c0b7c5$f57500a0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3f.12ad94fb.27f36d37@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid -- Both bids conventional but consistent Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:21:48 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Hemphill wrote: > What happens if the 2D bid over 1NT and over 2NT are BOTH conventional AND > consistent? That is, if both are for the majors, does the wording of the law > make bidding 3D over 2NT a problem? It would seem to. > Yes, per L27B2 the offender's partner must pass henceforth. When the convention is the same in both cases (e.g., transfer to hearts) and the minimum requirements for making the bid are the same, it doesn't seem right that the offender's partner should have to pass for the rest of the auction. For a Stayman bid, the case is different. If bidding 3C over 2NT requires less than bidding 2C over 1NT, then an insufficient 2C bid tells opener that responder is stronger than s/he might be for a legal 3C response. I suppose this might justify the Draconian penalty. The 1975 Laws left it up to the TD to determine if a barely-sufficient bid in the same denomination (BSBSD) "conveys such substantial information as to damage the non-offending side." If not, no penalty, whether or not either (or both) calls were conventional. This Law was a problem in that any imposed penalty had to be in the form of a score adjustment, not a restriction on the bidding of the offender's partner. That was too cumbersome, I guess, but it would permit the transfer substitution in your example to be made with no penalty. Perhaps wanting to avoid score adjustments when possible, the lawmakers changed L27B2 in 1987 (for an insufficient conventional bid followed by a BSBSD) and again in 1997 (when either the insufficient bid or BSBSD is conventional). In 1987 a score adjustment was still in order if a non-conventional insufficient bid was replaced by a BSBSD conventional bid, but the 1997 version did away with the score adjustment possibility entirely. In the interest of simplicity, which should have a high priority in the Laws, it's probably best to leave L27B2 as-is. 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 Mar 29 06:41:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SKfbN18334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 06:41:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SKfVt18296 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 06:41:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:42:03 -0800 Message-ID: <009c01c0b7c7$70fd5780$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200103281817.KAA12176@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:41:14 -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 From: "Adam Beneschan > > Marvin French wrote: > > > Suppose I pass an unAnnounced 2D transfer holding a good diamond suit > > that is worth a slightly risky 3D overcall. Later I claim MI when I see > > the overcall would have worked well. I will for sure get no redress from > > an ACBL TD if the transfer understanding was clearly shown on the > > in-view opposing CC, and probably no redress under any > > circumstances. . . . Because I could ask for an "explanation of the auction" if the CC is not in view. > > Now I'm confused. Earlier in the thread, you said that we should look > at the CC instead of asking a question. Now you're saying that we'd > get no redress if the CC is clearly marked, which is consistent; but > you're also implying that we'd get no redress "under any > circumstances", i.e. even if the CC is *not* clearly marked or is > mismarked (as it was in the situation I faced)!!! So if we're not > supposed to ask a question, just how are we experienced players > supposed to protect ourselves? Or are we just supposed to assume in > this case that if I have a good diamond suit, then 2D *must* be a > transfer, and thus take a bad result in the event that they were > giving correct information and the 2D bidder has a bunch of diamonds? > That can't be right. > An experienced player would be expected to look at the opposing CC when a 2D response to 1NT is not Alerted. If the CC is not in view, then s/he can say, "Please explain your auction" (always permissible unless solely for partner's benefit). Yes, that's equivalent in this case to "What does two diamonds mean?", but that form of question is not good form. I think it's appropriate to go by what the CC shows (that's what it's for), and that mismarked CCs should be grounds for redress, for anyone, if the MI causes damage, for anyone. It seems inappropriate to question the meaning of a call when the meaning is plainly shown on the CC. ("Is two diamonds really natural?"). That's heavy UI. The experienced player should always investigate the transfer possibility, of course, not just when holding diamonds. 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 Mar 29 07:06:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SL6TN27017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:06:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SL6Nt26986 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:06:23 +1000 (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 f2SL3NT01413 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:03:23 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:02:11 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:34 AM +0100 3/28/01, Tim West-meads wrote: > Just as a reality check - if >LHO's bid is alerted how many of us do not glance at the CC to see what it >means (I admit I don't play enough duplicate to be that disciplined)? Well, in the games where I usually play, I *can't* look at LHO's CC because it's either (1) in his pocket, (2) under his bidding box, or (3) non-existant. Maybe I should stop playing in club games, and stick to tournaments. 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/AwUBOsJSQL2UW3au93vOEQIpvgCfUL8ckZ5uESzDrgcghijM5/IwyVgAoMkm NtaFkP9boI44CR33mDGX1K/G =VL/X -----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 Mar 29 07:16:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SLGWc00580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:16:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SLGOt00541 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:16:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-46-25.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.46.25]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2SLGAv01802; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 22:16:11 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000801c0b7cc$2fef57c0$192e7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "David Stevenson" , References: <000701c0b5f8$bd4c8780$4d5e063e@pacific> <3ABF823F.32A2C852@inter.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:01:13 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "We will now discuss in a little more detail the struggle for existence." - Charles Darwin. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Dany Haimovici To: Grattan Endicott Cc: David Stevenson ; Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke > > What I suggested - no Penalties for revokes - > only redress damage . > > Thank you a priori for your opinion and the > background. > +=+ My belief is that in an ideal world this would be optimum procedure - with a penalty for repeated offences. However, we would probably create a need for 50% increase of Tournament Directors so that a couple could spend all their time working out the equity in such cases. ~ 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 Mar 29 07:17:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SLGvD00715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:16:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SLGot00682 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:16:51 +1000 (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 f2SLE9w26170; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:14:09 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <00df01c0b6ef$34a5e460$b4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006801c0b70f$b3e69740$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:09:38 -0500 To: brian@meadows.pair.com From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:34 AM -0500 3/28/01, Brian Meadows wrote: >I tried to cope with the problem by looking at my cards at the >start of the bidding and then putting them face down on the table >for the rest of the auction, so that I could pick the bidding >cards right handed, but one snotty opp objected to that ("he's >showing disinterest", disregarding the fact that I did it on >every hand) and the TD told me I wasn't allowed to do it. Law 74C6 says "The following are considered violations of procedure: showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal (as by folding one's cards)." The way *I* read that, folding one's cards is an infraction only if it shows disinterest. It does *not* say (though I can see how some id^H^Hpeople might think it does) that folding one's cards *always* shows disinterest. The TD was wrong, and so was your opponent. IMNSHO, of course. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOsJUwL2UW3au93vOEQKKcwCeJzKqAIUNk1AYu2IH7Hnj3mj2pWEAoKHC Kz2LSW/a7C1xXzhnndZra9+2 =v5dI -----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 Mar 29 07:22:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SLM3l00820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:22:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SLLvt00816 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:21:58 +1000 (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 NAA16173; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:21:52 -0800 Message-Id: <200103282121.NAA16173@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:41:14 PST." <009c01c0b7c7$70fd5780$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:21:52 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > > > Suppose I pass an unAnnounced 2D transfer holding a good diamond > > > suit > > > that is worth a slightly risky 3D overcall. Later I claim MI when I > > > see > > > the overcall would have worked well. I will for sure get no redress > > > from > > > an ACBL TD if the transfer understanding was clearly shown on the > > > in-view opposing CC, and probably no redress under any > > > circumstances. . . . > > > > Now I'm confused. Earlier in the thread, you said that we should look > > at the CC instead of asking a question. Now you're saying that we'd > > get no redress if the CC is clearly marked, which is consistent; but > > you're also implying that we'd get no redress "under any > > circumstances", i.e. even if the CC is *not* clearly marked or is > > mismarked (as it was in the situation I faced)!!! So if we're not > > supposed to ask a question, just how are we experienced players > > supposed to protect ourselves? . . . > > > An experienced player would be expected to look at the opposing CC when > a 2D response to 1NT is not Alerted. If the CC is not in view, then s/he > can say, "Please explain your auction" (always permissible unless solely > for partner's benefit). Yes, that's equivalent in this case to "What > does two diamonds mean?", but that form of question is not good form. > > I think it's appropriate to go by what the CC shows (that's what it's > for), and that mismarked CCs should be grounds for redress, for anyone, > if the MI causes damage, for anyone. It seems inappropriate to question > the meaning of a call when the meaning is plainly shown on the CC. ("Is > two > diamonds really natural?"). That's heavy UI. > > The experienced player should always investigate the transfer > possibility, of course, not just when holding diamonds. Oh, I see . . . you meant "probably no redress under any circumstances" *if* I don't attempt to look at the opponents' CC. That premise wasn't clear. Or at least not to me . . . perhaps it was clear to everyone else, but I didn't pick up on it. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 07:22:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SLMiE00832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:22:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SLMct00828 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:22:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f2SLNuk17773 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:23:56 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200103282123.f2SLNuk17773@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:23:56 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Mar 28, 2001 04:02:11 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 Ed Reppert writes: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 9:34 AM +0100 3/28/01, Tim West-meads wrote: > > Just as a reality check - if > >LHO's bid is alerted how many of us do not glance at the CC to see what it > >means (I admit I don't play enough duplicate to be that disciplined)? > > Well, in the games where I usually play, I *can't* look at LHO's CC > because it's either (1) in his pocket, (2) under his bidding box, or > (3) non-existant. Or (4) has only a low correlation with the actual methods being played. -- 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 Mar 29 07:27:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SLRlu00848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:27:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SLRet00844 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:27:41 +1000 (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 f2SLONT09390 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:24:24 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:16:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Taking a player away from the table [was Conventional Insufficient Bid] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:06 PM +0200 3/28/01, Martin Sinot wrote: >TD should query South about his bid (off the table, of course - >nobody has a right to this information) I have heard that, in the ACBL, this procedure used to be used - TD taking a player away from the table to ask him questions. I've also heard that it is now either deprecated, or flatly forbidden in ACBL events. Can anyone point me to a definitive statement by TPTB in Memphis on this question? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOsJXNb2UW3au93vOEQJXogCg77uBoNovg/ZvRoGCdHqQimUek64AoLEu LioV6Un6G25+HIkrMbutypVk =hbL2 -----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 Mar 29 07:28:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SLSYI00861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:28:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SLSSt00857 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:28:29 +1000 (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 f2SLPQT09916 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:25:28 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010328180843.00819430@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010328180843.00819430@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:18:38 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:08 PM +0200 3/28/01, alain gottcheiner wrote: >- he pulled the wrong card (2D in lieu of 3D) and didn't realize. No more >question. Only 'would 3D be conventional ?' Isn't this a mechanical error, correctable without penalty? 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/AwUBOsJXa72UW3au93vOEQLPAACbBYTZRMolWhAAF65Ms92o4o+7RvgAnirh jBP6YzBe9lqPdcA3e1NPFF/O =y4Ot -----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 Mar 29 07:47:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SLlY400913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:47:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SLlSt00909 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:47:29 +1000 (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 NAA16789; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:47:23 -0800 Message-Id: <200103282147.NAA16789@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:09:38 EST." Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:47:23 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > At 4:34 AM -0500 3/28/01, Brian Meadows wrote: > >I tried to cope with the problem by looking at my cards at the > >start of the bidding and then putting them face down on the table > >for the rest of the auction, so that I could pick the bidding > >cards right handed, but one snotty opp objected to that ("he's > >showing disinterest", disregarding the fact that I did it on > >every hand) and the TD told me I wasn't allowed to do it. > > Law 74C6 says "The following are considered violations of procedure: > showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal (as by folding > one's cards)." The way *I* read that, folding one's cards is an > infraction only if it shows disinterest. It does *not* say (though I > can see how some id^H^Hpeople might think it does) that folding one's > cards *always* shows disinterest. The TD was wrong, and so was your > opponent. > > IMNSHO, of course. :-) Mine, too. Didn't the late Oswald Jacoby used to stick his hand in his coat pocket? Then, during the play, he'd reach into his coat and pull out the card he wanted to play. The kibitzers were very impressed at this. Anyway, if Mr. Jacoby could put his cards in his coat without being accused of showing disinterest, I don't see anything inherently wrong with putting one's hand face down on the table. -- 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 Mar 29 08:03:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SM3O704991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:03:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SM3It04987 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:03:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f2SM4bQ18921 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:04:37 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200103282204.f2SM4bQ18921@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:04:36 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <200103282147.NAA16789@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Mar 28, 2001 01:47:23 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 Adam Beneschan writes: > > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > At 4:34 AM -0500 3/28/01, Brian Meadows wrote: > > >I tried to cope with the problem by looking at my cards at the > > >start of the bidding and then putting them face down on the table > > >for the rest of the auction, so that I could pick the bidding > > >cards right handed, but one snotty opp objected to that ("he's > > >showing disinterest", disregarding the fact that I did it on > > >every hand) and the TD told me I wasn't allowed to do it. > > > > Law 74C6 says "The following are considered violations of procedure: > > showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal (as by folding > > one's cards)." The way *I* read that, folding one's cards is an > > infraction only if it shows disinterest. It does *not* say (though I > > can see how some id^H^Hpeople might think it does) that folding one's > > cards *always* shows disinterest. The TD was wrong, and so was your > > opponent. > > > > IMNSHO, of course. :-) > > Mine, too. Didn't the late Oswald Jacoby used to stick his hand in > his coat pocket? Then, during the play, he'd reach into his coat and > pull out the card he wanted to play. The kibitzers were very > impressed at this. Anyway, if Mr. Jacoby could put his cards in his > coat without being accused of showing disinterest, I don't see > anything inherently wrong with putting one's hand face down on the > table. I know of other pros who don't sort their cards. One look, hand face down on table. The idea is to avoid giving info by sorting the hand. And it's not showing disinterest if that's the way it's always done. -- 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 Mar 29 08:05:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SM4tJ05008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:04:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cpimssmtpu01.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu01.email.msn.com [207.46.181.77]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SM4nt05004 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:04:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk ([65.224.0.212]) by cpimssmtpu01.email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3225); Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:04:41 -0800 Message-ID: <005501c0b7d2$c6808320$d400e041@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Taking a player away from the table [was Conventional Insufficient Bid] Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:02:24 -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 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2001 22:04:42.0460 (UTC) FILETIME=[176129C0:01C0B7D3] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote > I have heard that, in the ACBL, this procedure used to be used - TD > taking a player away from the table to ask him questions. I've also > heard that it is now either deprecated, or flatly forbidden in ACBL > events. Can anyone point me to a definitive statement by TPTB in > Memphis on this question? They were certainly still doing it at the Nationals in Kansas City last week. Chris -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 08:17:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SMHGJ05029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:17:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SMHAt05025 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:17:11 +1000 (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 f2SMEBT26707 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:14:14 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> References: <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:06:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I thought some might be interested in reading this article about John >Blubaugh and some of the evidence against him. I know there are many >doubts... > >http://www.dmagazine.com/magazine/legends0301.shtml Well, Mr. Beck sounds pretty certain. I still wonder, though, if he knew when he examined the videotape about Mr. Blubaugh's claim that his problem with his hand made him deal that way - and if it made, or would have made, any difference in Mr. Beck's conclusions. My guess is it probably wouldn't have made any difference, but that's only a guess. 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/AwUBOsJi272UW3au93vOEQIjWACg4BC0wLh7Qrx2p+Svr6ehXMCXZU8AoMyO kt6T7C2Kelq4ah1oCcpdo1UJ =qv3T -----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 Mar 29 08:25:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SMPmi05051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:25:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SMPgt05047 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:25:43 +1000 (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 f2SMN5T29490 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:23:05 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200103282147.NAA16789@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200103282147.NAA16789@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:18:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Anyway, if Mr. Jacoby could put his cards in his >coat without being accused of showing disinterest, I don't see >anything inherently wrong with putting one's hand face down on the >table. Me either. I'm reminded of a scene in one of Robert Heinlein's novels - - meeting of the "World Government" parliament. One of the delegates is reading a book during the proceedings. Nobody objects, though, because they all know she has the ability to split her attention, paying full attention both to the book she's reading, and the proceedings of the parliament. Nice trick that. Wish I could do it. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOsJk5r2UW3au93vOEQJcfQCeKFrF3C//k5RJPBEZtsD4ZTNtwCAAoLt3 d7ZD3LTmX99kEnUN8oKRJrQ+ =Lhli -----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 Mar 29 08:52:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SMq0805105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:52:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SMpst05101 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:51:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:52:27 -0800 Message-ID: <00e601c0b7d9$a85fa2c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200103282121.NAA16173@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:42:33 -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: "Adam Beneschan > Oh, I see . . . you meant "probably no redress under any > circumstances" *if* I don't attempt to look at the opponents' CC. > That premise wasn't clear. Or at least not to me . . . perhaps it was > clear to everyone else, but I didn't pick up on it. > Sorry about that. I like to edit for clarity, but seldom have the time. My accident last month, you know... (I can milk that excuse for years!) 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 Mar 29 09:03:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SN1aj05140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:01:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SN1Pt05129 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:01:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iOwC-000OiQ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 23:01:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:05:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call References: <200103271850.KAA24899@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200103271850.KAA24899@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 deals and opens 1NT; partner passes; RHO bids 2H. This is in the >ACBL, where "Transfer" must be announced if 2H is a transfer, and >other non-standard uses must be alerted ("standard" is that 2H is >natural and nonforcing). There is no announcement or Alert. I glance >at the convention card nearest me, and notice that transfers are not >marked on the card. I then bid 3D. LHO passes. Partner asks about >the 2H call and is told that it is a transfer. > >If I call the TD at that point, I have the right to change my call. >However, if I don't call the TD right away, do we lose the right to an >adjustment if my 3D call was based on misinformation and there was >damage? Yes, you lose that right. L21B3 is quite clear that scores are adjusted only when it is too late to change the call. This has been discussed behind the scenes in England a lot when an English TD who reads BLML, having consulted with me, gave such a ruling, and was upheld later at an AC. For the full details, see Brighton Appeals 2000 #3. -- 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 Mar 29 09:03:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SN1WA05138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:01:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SN1Nt05126 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:01:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iOwC-000MBi-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 23:01:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:52:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk No-trumps. Dummy on lead. A real case. -- xx xx -- -- -- A x x KQT xx -- -- x AJx -- North leads the Dx, East plays the DK, South thinks for a *long* time, then plays the Hx! East naturally attempts to put West in with the DA, so South finesses and makes three diamond tricks! OK, it is a two trick revoke, so South is reduced from making three tricks to one. But after the first trick, East could have played a heart and made the rest. Do we adjust under L64C? -- 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 Mar 29 09:03:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SN1aN05139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:01:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SN1Ot05127 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:01:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iOwC-000Drh-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 23:01:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:00:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] pre-alert References: <3.0.6.32.20010327182000.0080f100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010327182000.0080f100@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 >Another interesting issue on the problem of 'when to look at your >convention card'. > >Some national regulations state that items that are put at a specific place >on the CC will double as pre-alerts. >To have this work, you need to look at your opponents' CC before the turn, >or there would be no pre-alert. >Also, in T4 competitions where the CC has to be sent to the opposing teams >in advance (spontaneously, or collected and redirected by a specific >board), like the Bermuda Bowl or, more modestly, Belgian Championships, of >what use would it be if those who recieve the CC are not allowed to look at >them ? > >Really, the principles should be : > >1) you are allowed to look at your opps' CC at any time you have it at your >disposal, especially so before the encounter if provisions are made to >enable you to do it ; Put me in the Gill/Nicholls camp. You are not allowed to look at a CC when it is someone else's time to ply or call. >2) if you do so at the wrong time, namely at your partner's turn to bid or >lead, you will often transmit UI, with the usual caveat about not using it, >which means you'd even do better not creating it ; >or >2bis) excepted at your partner's turn to bid or lead. You won't, however, >be penalized unless partner has used UI or unless it appears that your >timing systematically creates UI ; If you continually violate correct procedure, you will eventually be penalised, whether there are any other problems or not. >3) if, at the table, you don't put your CC at the opponents' disposal, >you're treated as having no CC for information purposes (not for checking >MI/MB claims). You are treated as breaching the regulations of the SO. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 09:26:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SNQcB05236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:26:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SNQXt05232 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:26:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:27:05 -0800 Message-ID: <00e701c0b7de$7f7a0620$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Taking a player away from the table [was Conventional Insufficient Bid] Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:26:17 -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: "Ed Reppert" > > At 6:06 PM +0200 3/28/01, Martin Sinot wrote: > >TD should query South about his bid (off the table, of course - > >nobody has a right to this information) > > I have heard that, in the ACBL, this procedure used to be used - TD > taking a player away from the table to ask him questions. I've also > heard that it is now either deprecated, or flatly forbidden in ACBL > events. Can anyone point me to a definitive statement by TPTB in > Memphis on this question? > I can tell you definitely that ACBL TDs are instructed, not merely allowed, to take players away from the table in UI/MI cases, to ask them what they would have done absent the MI. The reason is to get an answer before players have an opportunity to think about it, possibly after discussions with others. Matt Smith tells me that sometimes a player won't claim s/he would have taken an action that Matt thinks would be automatic. David Stevenson has outlined his objections to the practice, with which I agree 100%. Don't know if he mentioned the time aspect, which is that it unnecessarily takes up a lot of time that players need in a time-controlled event. The TDs' concern about players having second thoughts is understandable, but not sufficient grounds for what they're doing. I suggest that they ask their questions at the first break, or end of session, whichever comes first. I really don't understand why they take players away from the table to ask if they want to change their last call, when that is a possibility. What's wrong with asking that question in front of everybody? One objection to the mandated practice is that it implies that a non-offender's potential action must be determined with some degree of certainty. L12C2 does not require certainty, merely a fair possibility, for the most favorable outcome, and players often don't know for sure what they "would have done." In Kansas City a strong player's weak jump takeout of 2H was Alerted as invitational, which it was not. When the Alerter doubled us in 4D, the shifty shifter pulled to 4H with his Jack-high hand. We doubled, he made, we're -590. On seeing his hand after the play, I called the TD, who took us both away from the table. She asked me what I would have done, etc., and I gave my standard response: "I have no idea." She did not argue with that and decided the matter without my input, adjusting to -200 for us, +200 for them, in 4D doubled. She later changed it to +/-500 when the shifter argued (correctly) that the right defense could not be missed. I thought of saying that I would not have doubled 4H had I been correctly informed, but I don't think she would have bought 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 Thu Mar 29 09:34:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SNYkD05263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:34:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SNYft05259 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:34:41 +1000 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id JAA07181; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:34:35 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma006937; Thu, 29 Mar 01 09:34:23 +1000 Received: from Viruswall with ESMTP id f2SNYNI06441 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 f2SNYNN06402 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:34:23 +1000 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA18423; Thu, 29 Mar 01 09:19:31 EST Message-Id: <00a001c0b7df$c554c170$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> From: "Peter Newman" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010327182000.0080f100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] pre-alert Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:35:27 +1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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, From: "David Stevenson" > alain gottcheiner writes > >Another interesting issue on the problem of 'when to look at your > >convention card'. --snip-- > >Really, the principles should be : > > > >1) you are allowed to look at your opps' CC at any time you have it at your > >disposal, especially so before the encounter if provisions are made to > >enable you to do it ; > > Put me in the Gill/Nicholls camp. You are not allowed to look at a CC > when it is someone else's time to ply or call. > I am in between. I think that David/Gill/Nicholls camp makes it impossible to correctly alert (see Tim West-meads example for UK - I am sure it is the same everywhere). Another example (this time Australia) RHO You LHO Prd (1C)* Pass (1S)* 2H *=alert - 1C=strong Partner doesn't ask about 1S and bids 2H - should you alert. It may not cross your mind too - except that 1S=bal positive and your agreements means that 2H shows majors. [Partner didn't ask because they knew what 1S meant.] It just doesn't seem right that I have to break the laws or the alert regs. Why isn't the law changed to allow you to refer to CC when you are the next person in the partnership to take action. i.e. when it is your turn to bid/play or RHO (or if you are declarer at any time). This would reduce UI problems of looking when it was partners turn to bid. It would allow proper alerts, and it may also help keep bidding in tempo as you could try and understand the auction before it was your turn to bid/play. Cheers, Peter Newman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 09:43:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SNgkI05286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:42:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2SNgdt05282 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:42:40 +1000 (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 PAA19197; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:42:33 -0800 Message-Id: <200103282342.PAA19197@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:52:21 +0100." Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:42:33 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > No-trumps. Dummy on lead. A real case. > > -- > xx > xx > -- > -- -- > A x > x KQT > xx -- > -- > x > AJx > -- > > North leads the Dx, East plays the DK, South thinks for a *long* time, > then plays the Hx! > > East naturally attempts to put West in with the DA, so South finesses > and makes three diamond tricks! > > OK, it is a two trick revoke, so South is reduced from making three > tricks to one. But after the first trick, East could have played a > heart and made the rest. > > Do we adjust under L64C? Yes. I think this one is clear. E-W's expectation at the instant before the revoke occurred is either three or four tricks, depending on whether South wins the diamond. I don't know how the first nine tricks went, but apparently it's not obvious what South's correct play is, given how long he spent thinking about it. So three tricks for the defense isn't enough. In the ACBL, I believe the defense should get all four tricks; but a weighted score may be appropriate in places where it's allowed. It's impossible to estimate the probabilities of the different results without seeing all the details of the auction and play. -- 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 Mar 29 10:09:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T09Yj05343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:09:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from aurora.uaf.edu (root@aurora.uaf.edu [137.229.18.100]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2T09St05339 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:09:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (uaf-du-03-10.alaska.edu [137.229.8.70]) by aurora.uaf.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07982; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:09:14 -0900 (AKST) Message-ID: <3AC27E64.D9D8EDB1@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:14:28 -0900 From: Michael Schmahl X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > No-trumps. Dummy on lead. A real case. > > -- > xx > xx > -- > -- -- > A x > x KQT > xx -- > -- > x > AJx > -- > > North leads the Dx, East plays the DK, South thinks for a *long* time, > then plays the Hx! > > East naturally attempts to put West in with the DA, so South finesses > and makes three diamond tricks! "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." To apply L64C, we must decide whether EW were "damaged". As far as I know, this means deciding what might have happened if the revoke had not occurred. At the point where East plays the DK, South might win the DA and lose the other three tricks, or South might duck, hoping East will play another diamond. In this case East might return a diamond or a heart, resulting in 2 tricks or 0 tricks, respectively. It seems to me that ducking is likely enough to rule "damage insufficiently compensated". East might have only diamonds left, from declarer's point of view, so ducking could be the right play. South playing the Dx, and East returning a heart, is both "likely" and "at all probable" for L12, so I will rule 0 tricks to NS. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 10:15:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T0FGd05367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:15:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2T0FAt05362 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:15:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2SHQ4301411 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:26:04 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:03:22 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01032817260404.01142@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, you wrote: > No-trumps. Dummy on lead. A real case. > > -- > xx > xx > -- > -- -- > A x > x KQT > xx -- > -- > x > AJx > -- > > North leads the Dx, East plays the DK, South thinks for a *long* time, > then plays the Hx! > > East naturally attempts to put West in with the DA, so South finesses > and makes three diamond tricks! > > OK, it is a two trick revoke, so South is reduced from making three > tricks to one. But after the first trick, East could have played a > heart and made the rest. > > Do we adjust under L64C? The standard of equity is the situation before the revoke was made. What could have happened after the revoke is not relevant in establishing equity unless it was irrational, wild, or gambling, in which case it might deny a L64C adjustment. I would not call East's play irrational even though it depends on declarer making an irrational play (conceding diamond tricks when there are still heart and club tricks to cash); East knows that declarer has played the wrong card from either dummy or his hand, and has no oblication to guess which it was. Even if declarer had already shown out in clubs, I would say that East is entitled to assume that he has miscounted the diamonds rather than that declarer has revoked. East does not get an adjustment for the MI that declarer was void in diamonds, since this was not done prior to the revoke, and the MI was not an incorrect explanation subject to L47E2. However, it would have been a normal play for South to have ducked the second diamond, placing East with all four outstanding diamonds. (In that case, ducking would give South two tricks, while playing the DA would give only one.) On the actual layout, East would lead the heart, and West would take the last three tricks. This is a case for L64C. Under L12C3, we could split the awards, giving N-S half the score for zero tricks and half the score for one trick, and E-W the reciprocal. If L12C3 is not allowed, then L12C2 says that the adjusted score is the best score for E-W that was likely and the worst score for N-S that was at all probable, and ducking the diamond is a likely play, so E-W get four tricks and N-S get no tricks. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 10:26:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T0QOK05387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:26:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2T0QHt05383 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:26:18 +1000 (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 QAA20172; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:26:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:05:57 +0100." Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:26:11 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes > > > >LHO deals and opens 1NT; partner passes; RHO bids 2H. This is in the > >ACBL, where "Transfer" must be announced if 2H is a transfer, and > >other non-standard uses must be alerted ("standard" is that 2H is > >natural and nonforcing). There is no announcement or Alert. I glance > >at the convention card nearest me, and notice that transfers are not > >marked on the card. I then bid 3D. LHO passes. Partner asks about > >the 2H call and is told that it is a transfer. > > > >If I call the TD at that point, I have the right to change my call. > >However, if I don't call the TD right away, do we lose the right to an > >adjustment if my 3D call was based on misinformation and there was > >damage? > > Yes, you lose that right. L21B3 is quite clear that scores are > adjusted only when it is too late to change the call. > > This has been discussed behind the scenes in England a lot when an > English TD who reads BLML, having consulted with me, gave such a ruling, > and was upheld later at an AC. For the full details, see Brighton > Appeals 2000 #3. OK, I've read it. The case really relies on L9B1, which says that the director must be summoned when attention is drawn to an irregularity. The only problem is that nowhere do the Laws define the term "drawing attention to an irregularity". The auction at our table went: LHO Partner RHO Me 1NT pass 2H(1) 3D 3S (2) [This was the actual auction; I changed 3S to pass when I posed the question.] (1) No announcement or alert; I looked at the nearest CC and transfers were not marked (2) Partner asked about the meaning of 2H and was told it was a transfer If partner or I had commented at that point, "That should have been announced", or "That's not what your CC says", or something to that effect, then it's clear that attention was being drawn to the irregularity, and it would have been a clear violation of L9B1 not to call the Director right then. But do a simple question about the meaning of an opponent's bid, and an answer to that question, constitute "drawing attention to an irregularity"? That's certainly not clear from the Laws, and I would not have guessed that it falls under the definition of "drawing attention". Sure, I realized at that point that an irregularity had occurred; but recognizing an irregularity is clearly not the same as having attention drawn to it (e.g. if dummy notices that an opponent has revoked, that does not constitute attention being drawn to it, and dummy is not allowed to call the TD at that point). So I had no reason to believe that I had to call the TD right then. In fact, given this vague area of the Laws, I'm surprised they retained the deposit in Brighton #3 (except for the fact that it was a technical matter that shouldn't have gone to an AC in the first place). So what has to happen for "attention to be drawn to an irregularity"? Do the Laws or the WBF or anyone have a definite answer to this, or do we have to guess? -- 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 Mar 29 10:28:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T0SS005409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:28:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2T0SMt05405 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:28:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iQIR-0009fe-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:28:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:22:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > No-trumps. Dummy on lead. A real case. > > -- > xx > xx > -- > -- -- > A x > x KQT > xx -- > -- > x > AJx > -- > > North leads the Dx, East plays the DK, South thinks for a *long* time, >then plays the Hx! > > East naturally attempts to put West in with the DA, so South finesses >and makes three diamond tricks! > > OK, it is a two trick revoke, so South is reduced from making three >tricks to one. But after the first trick, East could have played a >heart and made the rest. > > Do we adjust under L64C? > I don't. You might. there are those who do. "Would you have done better if the revoke had not occurred?" "No" No 64C. Simple really. -- 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 Mar 29 11:02:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T12gt05483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:02:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f107.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.107]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2T12at05479 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:02:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:02:29 -0800 Received: from 132.233.247.4 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:02:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [132.233.247.4] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:02:29 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2001 01:02:29.0661 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED86DCD0:01C0B7EB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >In article , David Stevenson > writes > > > > No-trumps. Dummy on lead. A real case. > > > > -- > > xx > > xx > > -- > > -- -- > > A x > > x KQT > > xx -- > > -- > > x > > AJx > > -- > > > > North leads the Dx, East plays the DK, South thinks for a *long* time, > >then plays the Hx! > > > > East naturally attempts to put West in with the DA, so South finesses > >and makes three diamond tricks! > > > > OK, it is a two trick revoke, so South is reduced from making three > >tricks to one. But after the first trick, East could have played a > >heart and made the rest. > > > > Do we adjust under L64C? > > >I don't. You might. there are those who do. > >"Would you have done better if the revoke had not occurred?" >"No" > >No 64C. Simple really. Oh, but this was illegal deception of the layout. Had east not been deceived, east-west could take the rest of the tricks. Adjust under 12C through 73F2. ;) I'm in the adjust camp. South was thinking real hard (and apparently without result) and decided that he was ducking the trick. He just didn't know whether to duck with a small diamond or a small heart. -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 Mar 29 11:30:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T1Tk605536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:29:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [65.162.17.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2T1Tet05532 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:29:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mom (sp3com-168.connectnc.net [65.162.23.168]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA94524; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:29:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <001801c0b7ef$887660a0$a817a241@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: , "Ed Reppert" Cc: "BLML" References: <00df01c0b6ef$34a5e460$b4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006801c0b70f$b3e69740$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:28:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If this section of the law was strictly enforced by all TDs & players, all the major events with our top players would have directors circling the room! Having called viewgraph finals both ACBL and World level for many, many years I have noticed that nearly all of these players, when intensely thinking, fold their hands. I would guess that lesser experienced players do not fold their hands when thinking... (if indeed they do think!) Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: Cc: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 4:34 AM -0500 3/28/01, Brian Meadows wrote: > >I tried to cope with the problem by looking at my cards at the > >start of the bidding and then putting them face down on the table > >for the rest of the auction, so that I could pick the bidding > >cards right handed, but one snotty opp objected to that ("he's > >showing disinterest", disregarding the fact that I did it on > >every hand) and the TD told me I wasn't allowed to do it. > > Law 74C6 says "The following are considered violations of procedure: > showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal (as by folding > one's cards)." The way *I* read that, folding one's cards is an > infraction only if it shows disinterest. It does *not* say (though I > can see how some id^H^Hpeople might think it does) that folding one's > cards *always* shows disinterest. The TD was wrong, and so was your > opponent. > > IMNSHO, of course. :-) > > Regards, > > Ed > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 > pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use > > iQA/AwUBOsJUwL2UW3au93vOEQKKcwCeJzKqAIUNk1AYu2IH7Hnj3mj2pWEAoKHC > Kz2LSW/a7C1xXzhnndZra9+2 > =v5dI > -----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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 11:41:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T1f2h05561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:41:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2T1ett05553 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:40:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([213.104.144.19]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010329014051.OHNV272.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:40:51 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c0b7f1$c94f6980$139068d5@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <00e701c0b7de$7f7a0620$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Taking a player away from the table [was Conventional Insufficient Bid] Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 02:44:24 +0100 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 It is of course good reason to take a player away from the table, to allow his partner opportunity to inform the opps of their agreements. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 12:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Taking a player away from the table [was Conventional Insufficient Bid] > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > > > At 6:06 PM +0200 3/28/01, Martin Sinot wrote: > > >TD should query South about his bid (off the table, of course - > > >nobody has a right to this information) > > > > I have heard that, in the ACBL, this procedure used to be used - TD > > taking a player away from the table to ask him questions. I've also > > heard that it is now either deprecated, or flatly forbidden in ACBL > > events. Can anyone point me to a definitive statement by TPTB in > > Memphis on this question? > > > I can tell you definitely that ACBL TDs are instructed, not merely > allowed, to take players away from the table in UI/MI cases, to ask them > what they would have done absent the MI. The reason is to get an answer > before players have an opportunity to think about it, possibly after > discussions with others. Matt Smith tells me that sometimes a player > won't claim s/he would have taken an action that Matt thinks would be > automatic. > > David Stevenson has outlined his objections to the practice, with which > I agree 100%. Don't know if he mentioned the time aspect, which is that > it unnecessarily takes up a lot of time that players need in a > time-controlled event. > > The TDs' concern about players having second thoughts is understandable, > but not sufficient grounds for what they're doing. I suggest that they > ask their questions at the first break, or end of session, whichever > comes first. > > I really don't understand why they take players away from the table to > ask if they want to change their last call, when that is a possibility. > What's wrong with asking that question in front of everybody? > > One objection to the mandated practice is that it implies that a > non-offender's potential action must be determined with some degree of > certainty. L12C2 does not require certainty, merely a fair possibility, > for the most favorable outcome, and players often don't know for sure > what they "would have done." > > In Kansas City a strong player's weak jump takeout of 2H was Alerted as > invitational, which it was not. When the Alerter doubled us in 4D, the > shifty shifter pulled to 4H with his Jack-high hand. We doubled, he > made, we're -590. On seeing his hand after the play, I called the TD, > who took us both away from the table. She asked me what I would have > done, etc., and I gave my standard response: "I have no idea." She did > not argue with that and decided the matter without my input, adjusting > to -200 for us, +200 for them, in 4D doubled. She later changed it to > +/-500 when the shifter argued (correctly) that the right defense could > not be missed. I thought of saying that I would not have doubled 4H had > I been correctly informed, but I don't think she would have bought 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 14:57:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T4vP727366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:57:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2T4vJt27361 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:57:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:57:50 -0800 Message-ID: <012901c0b80c$b4b8c460$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010327182000.0080f100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00a001c0b7df$c554c170$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> Subject: Re: [BLML] pre-alert Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:48:57 -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: "Peter Newman" > Why isn't the law changed to allow you to refer to CC when you are the next > person in the partnership to take action. i.e. when it is your turn to > bid/play or RHO (or if you are declarer at any time). > > This would reduce UI problems of looking when it was partners turn to bid. > It would allow proper alerts, and it may also help keep bidding in tempo as > you could try and understand the auction before it was your turn to > bid/play. > Very sensible, the only way to go. Perhaps the WBFLC would be willing to give us an interpretation that says "at his own turn to call or play" refers to one's turn within the partnership, not to one's turn among the four. 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 Mar 29 15:17:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T5HVD03644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:17:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2T5HOt03608 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:17:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:17:57 -0800 Message-ID: <013901c0b80f$83d0e6e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200103271850.KAA24899@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:08:27 -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: "David Stevenson" > Adam Beneschan writes > > > >LHO deals and opens 1NT; partner passes; RHO bids 2H. This is in the > >ACBL, where "Transfer" must be announced if 2H is a transfer, and > >other non-standard uses must be alerted ("standard" is that 2H is > >natural and nonforcing). There is no announcement or Alert. I glance > >at the convention card nearest me, and notice that transfers are not > >marked on the card. I then bid 3D. LHO passes. Partner asks about > >the 2H call and is told that it is a transfer. > > > >If I call the TD at that point, I have the right to change my call. > >However, if I don't call the TD right away, do we lose the right to an > >adjustment if my 3D call was based on misinformation and there was > >damage? > > Yes, you lose that right. L21B3 is quite clear that scores are > adjusted only when it is too late to change the call. > Only? L21B3: When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an adjusted score. I thought the principle was that if a player is given the opportunity by the TD to change a call, but refuses to do so, then there can be no later adjustment. Since the TD wasn't called, the opportunity wasn't offered, it became too late to change a call, and a score adjustment is possible. 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 Mar 29 16:56:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T6tih08682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:55:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2T6tat08644 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:55:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-103-101.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.103.101]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2T6tXv18233 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:55:33 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <00a301c0b81d$1edaec00$be207bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010327182000.0080f100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00a001c0b7df$c554c170$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> <012901c0b80c$b4b8c460$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] pre-alert Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:13:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "We will now discuss in a little more detail the struggle for existence." - Charles Darwin. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 5:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] pre-alert > > From: "Peter Newman" > > > Why isn't the law changed to allow you to refer > > to CC when you are the next person in the > > partnership to take action. i.e. when it is your > > turn to bid/play or RHO (or if you are declarer > > at any time). > > > > This would reduce UI problems of looking when > > it was partners turn to bid. > +=+ I am not persuaded of this suggestion, given that partner has various rights until his LHO has called. At the very least we would have to terminate those rights (or some of them) upon partner's examining the CC - something I do not believe can be done as an 'interpretation'. It would be difficult for the TD too. ~ 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 Mar 29 17:20:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T7K1P17286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:20:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2T7Jst17246 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:19:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from hosea.qub.ac.uk by mailhub2.qub.ac.uk with SMTP-QUB (XT-PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:19:46 +0000 Received: from DRHILL.qub.ac.uk ([143.117.47.245]) by hosea.qub.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA08675 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:19:45 +0100 (BST) From: Alan Hill To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call In-Reply-To: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:00:47 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:26:11 -0800 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Adam Beneschan writes > > > > > >LHO deals and opens 1NT; partner passes; RHO bids 2H. This is in the > > >ACBL, where "Transfer" must be announced if 2H is a transfer, and > > >other non-standard uses must be alerted ("standard" is that 2H is > > >natural and nonforcing). There is no announcement or Alert. I glance > > >at the convention card nearest me, and notice that transfers are not > > >marked on the card. I then bid 3D. LHO passes. Partner asks about > > >the 2H call and is told that it is a transfer. > > > > > >If I call the TD at that point, I have the right to change my call. > > >However, if I don't call the TD right away, do we lose the right to an > > >adjustment if my 3D call was based on misinformation and there was > > >damage? > > > > Yes, you lose that right. L21B3 is quite clear that scores are > > adjusted only when it is too late to change the call. > > > > This has been discussed behind the scenes in England a lot when an > > English TD who reads BLML, having consulted with me, gave such a ruling, > > and was upheld later at an AC. For the full details, see Brighton > > Appeals 2000 #3. > > OK, I've read it. The case really relies on L9B1, which says that the > director must be summoned when attention is drawn to an irregularity. > > The only problem is that nowhere do the Laws define the term "drawing > attention to an irregularity". The auction at our table went: > > LHO Partner RHO Me > 1NT pass 2H(1) 3D > 3S (2) > > [This was the actual auction; I changed 3S to pass when I posed the > question.] > > (1) No announcement or alert; I looked at the nearest CC and transfers > were not marked > (2) Partner asked about the meaning of 2H and was told it was a > transfer > Since you 'know' from looking at the CC that they are not playing transfers do you not let opps continue their muddle? Your 3D bid may not be based on misinformation. ---------------------- 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 Thu Mar 29 17:48:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T7mP927140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:48:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com (mailout02.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2T7mIt27102 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:48:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.com by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 14iXAF-0000Iw-04; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:48:15 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.0.164.15]) by fwd02.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 14iXA1-0RNSu8C; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:48:01 +0200 Message-ID: <3AC2E8E8.EA69DE77@t-online.de> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:48:56 +0200 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [de]C-CCK-MCD DT (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson schrieb: > > No-trumps. Dummy on lead. A real case. > > -- > xx > xx > -- > -- -- > A x > x KQT > xx -- > -- > x > AJx > -- > > North leads the Dx, East plays the DK, South thinks for a *long* time, > then plays the Hx! > > East naturally attempts to put West in with the DA, so South finesses > and makes three diamond tricks! > > OK, it is a two trick revoke, so South is reduced from making three > tricks to one. But after the first trick, East could have played a > heart and made the rest. > > Do we adjust under L64C? > Sure,we do. Declarer - after long thought - ducked the diamond. Now East should get it right if he does so with a small diamond instead of a small heart. So declarer would have taken no more tricks without the revoke, the opponents are insufficently compensated. I would always rule this way, even after a quick play. He can plan the play in advance, can't he? Is East to blame for not getting it right in any event? No, he isn't. Why shouldn't have declarer had a brainstorm and have called the wrong card from dummy? We don't know the complete hand, but I can see nothing wrong in cashing partner's marked ace. Cheers Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 18:01:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T814w01633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:01:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2T80ut01593 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:00:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-51.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.51]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2T80ki24085 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:00:51 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:38:05 +0200 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] Conventional Insufficient Bid References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Laval, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > Hi BLMLrs, > > E S > 2NT 2D TD called > > On N-S CCs, 2D/1NT is conventional (both majors) but 3D/2NT > is natural. > > Law 27B2: If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient > bid may have been conventional.... the offender's partner must > pass whenever it is his turn to call. > > I am not sure to understand the first part of the above sentence: > "If the insufficient bid may have been conventional". How an > insufficent bid (as 2D above) may be conventional ? After a 2NT > opening, N-S cannot have the agreement that this insufficient > 2D bid is for both majors. > > In the above case, does the TD have to take care that S could > have bid 2D (conventional), thinking the opening was 1NT? > > If yes, does the TD have to ask N what 2D could mean or > rule without asking ? > You ask a good question. Under the 1987 laws, the 2D bid was all that counted and this problem was quite current. Under the 1997 laws, the 3D also counts and this is usually far easier to decide upon. And then sometimes you come accross a casae where 3D is natural and you have to decide on 2D. I have always interpreted this as "conventional in the auction that the underbidder was thinking of". So you need to establish what the player was thinking. If he has majors, and it is clear that he was bidding over 1NT, then certainly it is conventional. But if he has long diamonds, and 2Di is an opening bid with diamonds in their system, and he tells you he simply did not see the opening bid, then 2Di is natural and can be changed to 3Di. I doubt it is the latter, though. But in practice you will simply have to ask the player (I suggest off the table, if that does not get me a flaming from DWS) what he was thinking of when he underbid. > Your ruling please. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Mar 29 19:02:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2T91jw23326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:01:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.141]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2T91dt23291 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:01:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from brian ([24.180.160.52]) by femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010329090136.OCSC27608.femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com@brian> for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:01:36 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 04:01:42 -0500 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: References: <00df01c0b6ef$34a5e460$b4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006801c0b70f$b3e69740$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <006901c0b7ba$bdf62880$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006901c0b7ba$bdf62880$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:09:02 -0800, Marv wrote: > >Do you also find it uncomfortable that the bidding cards themselves are >"right-handed"? I understand that left-handed bidding boxes are >available. IMO left-handed bidding boxes (i.e., with left-handed cards) >should be available in any game where bidding boxes are used. It pains >me to watch left-handers twisting their wrists to place calls correctly. > I've become used to using the right-handed cards left-handed. Since we're on opposite sides of a continent I doubt we're likely to meet up in a F2F game at any time, so you'll at least be spared seeing me do the awkward-looking placement of cards. Brian. (Currently near Baltimore, MD, but northern PA in a month or so). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 20:02:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TA2Ft24415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 20:02:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f2TA29t24410 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 20:02:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iZFl-0006w4-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:02:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:55:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid References: <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Hello Laval, > >Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >> >> Hi BLMLrs, >> >> E S >> 2NT 2D TD called >> >> On N-S CCs, 2D/1NT is conventional (both majors) but 3D/2NT >> is natural. >> >> Law 27B2: If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient >> bid may have been conventional.... the offender's partner must >> pass whenever it is his turn to call. >> snip >But if he has long diamonds, and 2Di is an opening bid with >diamonds in their system, and he tells you he simply did not >see the opening bid, then 2Di is natural and can be changed >to 3Di. > >I doubt it is the latter, though. > >But in practice you will simply have to ask the player (I >suggest off the table, if that does not get me a flaming >from DWS) what he was thinking of when he underbid. > In a National event I would take the player away from the table and ask (and I'm pretty sure DWS would too). If the substituted call is conventional I would rule without further comment. If the substituted call is natural I would tell the table whether I deemed the undercall to be natural or conventional as it makes a difference to the ruling. I would then rule. I'd also stand by so that if the offender became a defender I would tell his partner not to use the UI. etc. In a club event I tend to ask at the table because the players all know each other and the whole exchange can be done quickly and with a degree of humour. "What on earth were you thinking about you dozy bint?" is certainly a line I've used with favourite customers. The extra UI is seldom material and the players handle it well. "bint" 60's ex-Liverpool slang for a free'n'easy girl, in common use in the 70's and acceptable humour to many of my lady players. > >> Your ruling please. >> >> Laval Du Breuil >> Quebec City >> >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- 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 Mar 29 22:03:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TC2DZ11638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:02:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TC27t11603 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:02:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([213.105.142.149]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010329100453.YJAH272.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:04:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c0b838$35e8c320$958e69d5@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <00e701c0b7de$7f7a0620$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001501c0b7f1$c94f6980$139068d5@vnmvhhid> <013a01c0b80f$849129a0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Taking a player away from the table [was Conventional Insufficient Bid] Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:08:31 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Anne Jones" Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 6:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Taking a player away from the table [was Conventional Insufficient Bid] > > From: "Anne Jones" [was Conventional Insufficient Bid] > > > Marvin French wrote: > > > > I really don't understand why they take players away from the table > to > > > ask if they want to change their last call, when that is a > > > possibility. > > > What's wrong with asking that question in front of everybody? > > > It is of course good reason to take a player away from the table, to > > allow his partner opportunity to inform the opps of their agreements. > > Not understood. Please give me an example of what you are talking about. > What might partner say that should not be heard by the one taken away? > A partnership involved in a complex auction, and a player alerts a bid at the three level, which is unlikely to be on the CC. Asked what this bid means, he says "we have discussed this sequence, but I am not sure that I remember correctly what it was that we agreed". Opps are entitled to know, so the TD is called. TD send forgetful player away from the table so that the person who made the bid can inform the opps of what the bid is supposed to mean. This may, or may not be a description of his hand, but if it is not, it would be helpful if his explanation could be backed up by system notes later :-) 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 Mar 29 23:08:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TD8Lq24272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:08:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TD8Ft24268 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:08:15 +1000 (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 f2TD8At98498 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:08:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329074535.00b0c830@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, 29 Mar 2001 08:09:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:38 PM 3/28/01, Herman wrote: >And then sometimes you come accross a casae where 3D is >natural and you have to decide on 2D. > >I have always interpreted this as "conventional in the >auction that the underbidder was thinking of". > >So you need to establish what the player was thinking. If >he has majors, and it is clear that he was bidding over 1NT, >then certainly it is conventional. This appears to contradict what seems to be a general view on BLML, that L27B2 was revised to reduce problems with UI after an insufficient bid. If the issue is UI, and if there are multiple possible "meanings" for the insufficient bid depending on what the bidder thought the actual auction was, and if any of those meanings could lead to applying L27B1 instead of L27B2, then it shouldn't matter what the bidder was thinking of (if, indeed, he himself knows), because his partner doesn't know. I'd argue that we don't need L27B2 for this purpose at all; L27B1(b) is sufficient to deal with UI from insufficient bids. But if we retain it in future versions of TFLB, I'd argue strongly for its applicability being made dependent on the conventionality of only the substituted bid. Trying to devine the "meaning" of an insufficient bid (which is meaningingless in most partnerships; indeed, for an insufficient bid to have a "meaning" in the normal sense of the word is illegal in the ACBL) sounds like more powerful mind-reading than the sort we go out of our way to avoid in other parts of the law. 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 Mar 29 23:16:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TDGhW24294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:16:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TDGct24290 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:16:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-20-7.easynet.co.uk [212.134.226.7]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D4A7C22E405 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:16:30 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:14:14 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I'm mystified. In the 'Double Revoke' string, John (MadDog) Probst (Thu 22 Mar 2001 03:12) wrote: >Equity is the equity in the hand at the point it was dealt. When I questioned this view, David Stevenson (Fri 23 Mar 2001 02:29) emphatically (and monosyllabically) supported it. Since he has not subsequently recanted, I assume he still believes it. Now David (Wed 28 Mar 2001 16:52) has asked us about equity in a four card ending. If he believes L64C equity is "in the hand at the point it was dealt", how does he expect us to resolve it unless we are given the full deal? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 23:19:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TDJ3P24309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:19:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TDIvt24305 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:18:58 +1000 (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 f2TDIsw01931 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:18:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329081317.00b0f170@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, 29 Mar 2001 08:19:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat In-Reply-To: References: <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:06 PM 3/28/01, Ed wrote: >Well, Mr. Beck sounds pretty certain. I still wonder, though, if he >knew when he examined the videotape about Mr. Blubaugh's claim that >his problem with his hand made him deal that way - and if it made, or >would have made, any difference in Mr. Beck's conclusions. My guess >is it probably wouldn't have made any difference, but that's only a >guess. I am too ignorant about the Blubaugh case to have an opinion on his guilt or innocence, but I am dubious about Mr. Beck's credibility. He is cited in the article as an authority on the mathematics of his specialty, but he makes the blatantly incorrect statement that the chance of retaining the original bottom card throughout 16 random shuffles is (1/52)**16 (about three octillion to one); the correct figure is (1/2)**16 (about 65,500 to one). Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 29 23:22:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TDM1o24325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:22:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TDLst24321 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:21:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA13682; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:21:24 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id PAA21326; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:21:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010329152432.00821100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:24:32 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , brian@meadows.pair.com From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Cc: "BLML" In-Reply-To: References: <00df01c0b6ef$34a5e460$b4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006801c0b70f$b3e69740$3b30d2cc@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 16:09 28/03/01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 4:34 AM -0500 3/28/01, Brian Meadows wrote: >>I tried to cope with the problem by looking at my cards at the >>start of the bidding and then putting them face down on the table >>for the rest of the auction, so that I could pick the bidding >>cards right handed, but one snotty opp objected to that ("he's >>showing disinterest", disregarding the fact that I did it on >>every hand) and the TD told me I wasn't allowed to do it. > >Law 74C6 says "The following are considered violations of procedure: >showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal (as by folding >one's cards)." The way *I* read that, folding one's cards is an >infraction only if it shows disinterest. It does *not* say (though I >can see how some id^H^Hpeople might think it does) that folding one's >cards *always* shows disinterest. The TD was wrong, and so was your >opponent. AG : yours truly folds his cards after nearly every call. What mark of disinterest ? It is less probable that some would escape and be seen. Isn't it a positive attitude ? (ah yes, and it is also less likely that some Kibitz would react to what he sees, if he doesn't see) 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 Mar 29 23:50:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TDoUh24383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:50:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mirapoint.inter.net.il (mirapoint.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TDoNt24379 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:50:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-3-108.inter.net.il [213.8.3.108]) by mirapoint.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AMU33250; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:48:59 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AC33EFE.CF2FAD46@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:56:15 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nancy CC: brian@meadows.pair.com, Ed Reppert , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC References: <00df01c0b6ef$34a5e460$b4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006801c0b70f$b3e69740$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001801c0b7ef$887660a0$a817a241@mom> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bridge players thinking ?????! The most unbelievable action and the fiercest infringement of the laws Dany Nancy wrote: > If this section of the law was strictly enforced by all TDs & players, all > the major events with our top players would have directors circling the > room! Having called viewgraph finals both ACBL and World level for many, > many years I have noticed that nearly all of these players, when intensely > thinking, fold their hands. I would guess that lesser experienced players > do not fold their hands when thinking... (if indeed they do think!) Nancy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: > Cc: "BLML" > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:09 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > At 4:34 AM -0500 3/28/01, Brian Meadows wrote: > > >I tried to cope with the problem by looking at my cards at the > > >start of the bidding and then putting them face down on the table > > >for the rest of the auction, so that I could pick the bidding > > >cards right handed, but one snotty opp objected to that ("he's > > >showing disinterest", disregarding the fact that I did it on > > >every hand) and the TD told me I wasn't allowed to do it. > > > > Law 74C6 says "The following are considered violations of procedure: > > showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal (as by folding > > one's cards)." The way *I* read that, folding one's cards is an > > infraction only if it shows disinterest. It does *not* say (though I > > can see how some id^H^Hpeople might think it does) that folding one's > > cards *always* shows disinterest. The TD was wrong, and so was your > > opponent. > > > > IMNSHO, of course. :-) > > > > Regards, > > > > Ed > > > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 > > pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use > > > > iQA/AwUBOsJUwL2UW3au93vOEQKKcwCeJzKqAIUNk1AYu2IH7Hnj3mj2pWEAoKHC > > Kz2LSW/a7C1xXzhnndZra9+2 > > =v5dI > > -----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/ > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 29 23:52:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TDqoJ24397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:52:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TDqit24393 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:52:45 +1000 (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 f2TDqft01335 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:52:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329083525.00ab4b90@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, 29 Mar 2001 08:53:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: References: <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be> <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:55 AM 3/29/01, John wrote: >In a National event I would take the player away from the table and ask >(and I'm pretty sure DWS would too). If the substituted call is >conventional I would rule without further comment. If the substituted >call is natural I would tell the table whether I deemed the undercall to >be natural or conventional as it makes a difference to the ruling. I >would then rule. I'd also stand by so that if the offender became a >defender I would tell his partner not to use the UI. etc. This does appear to be what L27B requires, but I submit that it demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the law. Note what the TD must do in some circumstances: Step 1. Determine whether the insufficient bid was intended to be conventional or not. Step 2. Rule under either L27B1 or L27B2 depending on the outcome of step 1. Note that even if you do not make an explicit statement as John does, the ruling itself tells the table what the outcome of step 1 was. Step 3. Warn the insufficient bidder's partner that THE INFORMATION YOU JUST GAVE HIM YOURSELF AT STEP 2 is unauthorized, therefore he must bend over backwards etc. It feels wrong for the law to burden a player with the obligation to avoid taking advantage of UI which it itself creates. 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 Mar 30 00:33:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TEWoC24455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:32:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TEWit24451 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:32:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14idTb-000BDp-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:32:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:25:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Brambledown writes >I'm mystified. > >In the 'Double Revoke' string, John (MadDog) Probst (Thu 22 Mar 2001 03:12) >wrote: > >>Equity is the equity in the hand at the point it was dealt. > When I wrote this I made a mistake. I do not believe this. Equity IMO (and DWS is still on the fence) must be judged from the point at which the first revoke occurred. I noted that Grattan reported that Edgar had intended this to be the case ... not that that necessarily means we should treat it as the perfect truth. >When I questioned this view, David Stevenson (Fri 23 Mar 2001 02:29) >emphatically (and monosyllabically) supported it. Since he has not >subsequently recanted, I assume he still believes it. > >Now David (Wed 28 Mar 2001 16:52) has asked us about equity in a four card >ending. If he believes L64C equity is "in the hand at the point it was >dealt", how does he expect us to resolve it unless we are given the full >deal? > >Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 30 02:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TG2gk16619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2TG2Ft16519 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iesE-000Aow-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:02:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:19:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Adam Beneschan writes >> > >> >LHO deals and opens 1NT; partner passes; RHO bids 2H. This is in the >> >ACBL, where "Transfer" must be announced if 2H is a transfer, and >> >other non-standard uses must be alerted ("standard" is that 2H is >> >natural and nonforcing). There is no announcement or Alert. I glance >> >at the convention card nearest me, and notice that transfers are not >> >marked on the card. I then bid 3D. LHO passes. Partner asks about >> >the 2H call and is told that it is a transfer. >> > >> >If I call the TD at that point, I have the right to change my call. >> >However, if I don't call the TD right away, do we lose the right to an >> >adjustment if my 3D call was based on misinformation and there was >> >damage? >> >> Yes, you lose that right. L21B3 is quite clear that scores are >> adjusted only when it is too late to change the call. >> >> This has been discussed behind the scenes in England a lot when an >> English TD who reads BLML, having consulted with me, gave such a ruling, >> and was upheld later at an AC. For the full details, see Brighton >> Appeals 2000 #3. > >OK, I've read it. The case really relies on L9B1, which says that the >director must be summoned when attention is drawn to an irregularity. > >The only problem is that nowhere do the Laws define the term "drawing >attention to an irregularity". The auction at our table went: > > LHO Partner RHO Me > 1NT pass 2H(1) 3D > 3S (2) > >[This was the actual auction; I changed 3S to pass when I posed the > question.] > >(1) No announcement or alert; I looked at the nearest CC and transfers > were not marked >(2) Partner asked about the meaning of 2H and was told it was a > transfer > >If partner or I had commented at that point, "That should have been >announced", or "That's not what your CC says", or something to that >effect, then it's clear that attention was being drawn to the >irregularity, and it would have been a clear violation of L9B1 not to >call the Director right then. > >But do a simple question about the meaning of an opponent's bid, and >an answer to that question, constitute "drawing attention to an >irregularity"? That's certainly not clear from the Laws, and I would >not have guessed that it falls under the definition of "drawing >attention". Sure, I realized at that point that an irregularity had >occurred; but recognizing an irregularity is clearly not the same as >having attention drawn to it (e.g. if dummy notices that an opponent >has revoked, that does not constitute attention being drawn to it, and >dummy is not allowed to call the TD at that point). So I had no >reason to believe that I had to call the TD right then. > >In fact, given this vague area of the Laws, I'm surprised they >retained the deposit in Brighton #3 (except for the fact that it was a >technical matter that shouldn't have gone to an AC in the first >place). > >So what has to happen for "attention to be drawn to an irregularity"? >Do the Laws or the WBF or anyone have a definite answer to this, or do >we have to guess? You are concentrating on the wrong Law. It is L21B3 that means you do not get adjustment for a call that could have been changed under L21B1. However, if you really want an interpretation for when attention has been called to an irregularity, then I think a conversation such as: "What is the double?" "Sputnik." "Why did you not alert? "Sorry, I forgot." clearly draws attention to the irregularity. Now L9B1 demands all four players should call the Director. But it is L21 that means that the one and only call that can now be withdrawn can not be dealt with by adjustment later. It is important that we do not give law-breakers an advantage over law-followers. In the example case, the auction went 1S 2C X ? What should the lady bid now? She has a club fit, a mediocre hand, favourable vulnerability [I think - this is from memory]. 3C? 4C? 5C? The point is that if she picks the right level, the oppos might miss their cold slam. A law-follower calls the TD, and the lady gets to withdraw her pass, and has to pick a level to call at. if she guesses wrong/misjudges, the oppos reach the slam. A law-breaker does not call the TD as required by L9B1. Now, if we were not to follow this business about L21B3, and decided to adjust, we would give her the benefit of the doubt, and make the oppos play in game. Thus, if you do not rule as the wording of L21B3 requires, then it is to the advantage of the player *not* to follow the Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 02:03:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TG2gP16620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2TG2Ft16527 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iesE-000Aoz-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:02:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:29:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] cancelled concession References: <043401c0b77c$87ac0800$0f691c3f@mike> In-Reply-To: <043401c0b77c$87ac0800$0f691c3f@mike> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk mike dodson writes >In a recent club game I was charged with ruling >for the local player. >I want to check if I'm off base so let me have it >if I deserve it. > >STAC club game, mostly the regulars playing but >boards duplicated over >a three state area and overall awards given. East >is well known but from > out of town, incidentally owner and frequent >director of a large club. > >I'm called to the table and after some dispute >establish this as the >end position: > > S K95 >S J S Q86 >H xx > H xxx > >Spades are trump after a transfer auction, >declarer leads a heart, ruffed > with the 5 and over ruffed by East. East has lost >track of the spade jack > and concedes the last two tricks to dummy showing >his hand. West > objects, shows his hand and after some heat the >director is called. > >I rule L68b, no concession has occurred but the UI >of seeing partners jack > means that leading the Queen of spades is the >non-suggested logical > alternative for a player who thinks the position >is futile even though it is > obviously a no hope play. Dummy gets the last two >tricks. > >Was this too harsh? Should I have called all the >defender's cards penalty > cards and let declarer require the favorable >play? Yes, you should. However, even if you do not, you would then adjust as above through UI. >Suppose the objection had not been raised >immediately but a few > moments later. Now L71c (implausible concession) >requires a different > standard, "any normal play" and the footnote. >Should I have used this > since West showed his hand? Would the ruling be >different? Either the SQ is a reasonable play, or it isn't. The standard is much the same. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 02:03:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TG2lZ16640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2TG2Mt16567 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iesJ-000Aov-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:02:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:37:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid References: <200103281840.KAA12762@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200103281840.KAA12762@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 >Laval Du Breuil wrote: >> Hi BLMLrs, >> >> E S >> 2NT 2D TD called >> >> On N-S CCs, 2D/1NT is conventional (both majors) but 3D/2NT >> is natural. >> >> Law 27B2: If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient >> bid may have been conventional.... the offender's partner must >> pass whenever it is his turn to call. >> >> I am not sure to understand the first part of the above sentence: >> "If the insufficient bid may have been conventional". How an >> insufficent bid (as 2D above) may be conventional ? After a 2NT >> opening, N-S cannot have the agreement that this insufficient >> 2D bid is for both majors. > >We've gone over this before on BLML, and I think the consensus was >that this phrasing makes no sense and needs to be redone. I'd vote >for a definition that says that an insufficient bid is deemed to be >"potentially conventional" if this condition holds: There is a legal >auction in which the previous bid(*) is changed either to a lower bid >in the same denomination or to a pass, and the insufficient bid would >be sufficient and conventional in this auction. It may be necessary >to allow the Director to deem some (rare) insufficient bids that don't >meet this condition to be "potentially conventional". My vote would go for allowing the player to correct to the lowest legal bid in the same denomination regardless. No-one has ever given me any convincing argument why this is wrong. there will be UI problems, but there are anyway. Second choice: not allow it if the corrected bid would be conventional, but ignore whether the insufficient bid is conventional. Note that my solution solves the old problem [which happened last night]: 2NT P 2D Everyone knew he meant it as a transfer. So we told him to try again, and he changed it to 3D. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 02:03:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TG2jj16631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TG2Jt16548 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iesJ-000Aow-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:02:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:32:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Taking a player away from the table [was Conventional Insufficient Bid] References: <00e701c0b7de$7f7a0620$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00e701c0b7de$7f7a0620$3b30d2cc@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" >> >> At 6:06 PM +0200 3/28/01, Martin Sinot wrote: >> >TD should query South about his bid (off the table, of course - >> >nobody has a right to this information) >> >> I have heard that, in the ACBL, this procedure used to be used - TD >> taking a player away from the table to ask him questions. I've also >> heard that it is now either deprecated, or flatly forbidden in ACBL >> events. Can anyone point me to a definitive statement by TPTB in >> Memphis on this question? >> >I can tell you definitely that ACBL TDs are instructed, not merely >allowed, to take players away from the table in UI/MI cases, to ask them >what they would have done absent the MI. The reason is to get an answer >before players have an opportunity to think about it, possibly after >discussions with others. Matt Smith tells me that sometimes a player >won't claim s/he would have taken an action that Matt thinks would be >automatic. > >David Stevenson has outlined his objections to the practice, with which >I agree 100%. Don't know if he mentioned the time aspect, which is that >it unnecessarily takes up a lot of time that players need in a >time-controlled event. However, in the actual situation, I do take a player away from the table. Now, I am not asking him what he would have done in a particular case, but what he did. I ask him why he made an insufficient bid. Note however, that I do not now offer him L25A, which I understand ACBL TDs do. There has been a pause for thought, and he has not attempted to change it. L25A is out of time. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 02:03:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TG2pQ16654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2TG2Ft16520 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iesE-000Aov-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:02:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:04:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC References: <00df01c0b6ef$34a5e460$b4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <006801c0b70f$b3e69740$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <006901c0b7ba$bdf62880$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006901c0b7ba$bdf62880$3b30d2cc@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 >Brian Meadows wrote: > > >> Marv wrote: >> > >> >The current NABC >> >practice of having bidding boxes suspended off the table on a corner >> >bracket makes CCs much easier to view. Those brackets are cheap, and >I >> >wish they were universally employed. >> > >> I am not a gambler - but if I were, I would be willing to place a >> large amount of money on the fact that Marv plays his cards right >> handed. In any case, those damned brackets are a major PITA for >> left handers! > >Yes, right-handed. But I normally place an unbracketed bidding box on my >left, where it should be, close to where the first call will be placed. >Why do people want to carry the cards further than is necessary? :)) This is one of the reasons that, despite being right-handed myself, I use a left-handed bidding box when available, and whether available or not, I always use them in a left-handed fashion. I find it much easier. I do not think I would like bracketed ones though! >> And yes, I *tried* to get used to playing the cards right handed. >> It played absolute hell with my concentration during the bidding, >> it *JUST FELT WRONG* (try playing a session holding them left >> handed). > >Do you also find it uncomfortable that the bidding cards themselves are >"right-handed"? I understand that left-handed bidding boxes are >available. IMO left-handed bidding boxes (i.e., with left-handed cards) >should be available in any game where bidding boxes are used. It pains >me to watch left-handers twisting their wrists to place calls correctly. Many English bridge clubs have left-handed boxes. The EBU does not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 02:03:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TG2da16609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2TG2Ft16524 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iesE-000Aoy-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:02:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:22:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> >> No-trumps. Dummy on lead. A real case. >> >> -- >> xx >> xx >> -- >> -- -- >> A x >> x KQT >> xx -- >> -- >> x >> AJx >> -- >> >> North leads the Dx, East plays the DK, South thinks for a *long* time, >>then plays the Hx! >> >> East naturally attempts to put West in with the DA, so South finesses >>and makes three diamond tricks! >> >> OK, it is a two trick revoke, so South is reduced from making three >>tricks to one. But after the first trick, East could have played a >>heart and made the rest. >> >> Do we adjust under L64C? >> >I don't. You might. there are those who do. > >"Would you have done better if the revoke had not occurred?" >"No" Why no? > >No 64C. Simple really. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 02:03:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TG2i716626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2TG2Ht16531 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:02:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iesE-000Aox-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:02:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:20:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call References: <200103271850.KAA24899@mailhub.irvine.com> <013901c0b80f$83d0e6e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <013901c0b80f$83d0e6e0$3b30d2cc@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" >> Yes, you lose that right. L21B3 is quite clear that scores are >> adjusted only when it is too late to change the call. >Only? > >L21B3: When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an >adjusted score. > >I thought the principle was that if a player is given the opportunity by >the TD to change a call, but refuses to do so, then there can be no >later adjustment. Since the TD wasn't called, the opportunity wasn't >offered, it became too late to change a call, and a score adjustment is >possible. No. See my full explanation in another post. L9B1 requires the TD to be called, and you are giving an advantage to law-breakers. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 02:34:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TGXvi19647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:33:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TGXpt19643 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:33:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14ifMp-00073S-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:33:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:25:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst writes >>In article , David Stevenson >> writes >>> >>> No-trumps. Dummy on lead. A real case. >>> >>> -- >>> xx >>> xx >>> -- >>> -- -- >>> A x >>> x KQT >>> xx -- >>> -- >>> x >>> AJx >>> -- >>> >>> North leads the Dx, East plays the DK, South thinks for a *long* time, >>>then plays the Hx! >>> >>> East naturally attempts to put West in with the DA, so South finesses >>>and makes three diamond tricks! >>> >>> OK, it is a two trick revoke, so South is reduced from making three >>>tricks to one. But after the first trick, East could have played a >>>heart and made the rest. >>> >>> Do we adjust under L64C? >>> >>I don't. You might. there are those who do. >> >>"Would you have done better if the revoke had not occurred?" >>"No" > because East "knew" what was going on, and is trying a double shot. If we allow 72B1 (which I want to do) then I'd award all 4. > Why no? >> >>No 64C. Simple really. > -- 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 Mar 30 02:37:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TGbi119659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:37:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TGbct19655 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:37:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-29.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.29]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0094222E47C for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:37:17 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:35:01 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA ( Wed 28 Mar 2001 15:57) writes: > E S > 2NT 2D TD called > >On N-S CCs, 2D/1NT is conventional (both majors) but 3D/2NT >is natural. > >Law 27B2: If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient >bid may have been conventional.... the offender's partner must >pass whenever it is his turn to call. > >I am not sure to understand the first part of the above sentence: >"If the insufficient bid may have been conventional". How an >insufficent bid (as 2D above) may be conventional ? After a 2NT >opening, N-S cannot have the agreement that this insufficient >2D bid is for both majors. > >In the above case, does the TD have to take care that S could >have bid 2D (conventional), thinking the opening was 1NT? > >If yes, does the TD have to ask N what 2D could mean or >rule without asking ? > >Your ruling please. The string on this subject has not picked up on the use of "incontrovertibly" in L27B1("If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are *incontrovertibly* not conventional..." (my emphasis)). As TD, I do not concern myself with what the insufficient bidder intended only what it is at all likely that he could have intended. I have never needed, therefore, to call a player away from the table. For example, if the bidding has gone N: 1H E: 1C and EW are playing Precision (say) then this cannot be said to be "incontrovertibly not conventional" and L27B2 applies. In ruling this way I am not saying that East intended to open 1C having missed the 1H opening, only that he *may have done* and therefore L72B1 cannot apply. Am I wrong? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 02:45:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TGjVE19681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:45:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TGjOt19677 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:45:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA12985 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:45:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA25110 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:45:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:45:20 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103291645.LAA25110@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > he makes the blatantly incorrect statement that the > chance of retaining the original bottom card throughout 16 random > shuffles is (1/52)**16 (about three octillion to one); the correct > figure is (1/2)**16 (about 65,500 to one). It's a little unclear what the correct probability is supposed to be. I've lost the URL now, I'm afraid, but wasn't the initial statement the probability of having a specific card (ace of spades?) on the bottom and retaining it there for 16 shuffles? In that case it would be 1/52*(1/2)^16. Of course the statement in the article is still wrong, but at least this way there is a 52 in the formula. I am, however, inclined to attribute the problem to the article's author, not to Mr. Beck. It wasn't clear to me that Mr. Beck himself claims to be an expert on mathematics, though clearly he claims to be an expert on card tricks and shuffling, a "mechanic" as some say. A mathematical formula is something that it's easy for a non- mathematically-inclined reporter (or editor) to miscopy, even if he is given the correct formula in the first place. Also, a non-expert may not realize that a subtle rephrasing of the problem (e.g. specific card versus any card) changes the answer. None of this says much about Mr. Blubaugh's guilt or innocence, of course. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 02:55:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TGt6A19703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:55:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TGt0t19699 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:55:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA13431 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:54:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA25128 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:54:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:54:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103291654.LAA25128@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > L9B1 requires the TD to > be called, and you are giving an advantage to law-breakers. L9B1 only takes effect if attention has been drawn. > "What is the double?" > "Sputnik." > "Why did you not alert? > "Sorry, I forgot." Yes, now there is no doubt attention has been drawn, but what if the conversation ends after the first two lines? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 02:59:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TGx8F19720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:59:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f16.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TGx3t19716 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:59:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:58:55 -0800 Received: from 172.167.115.246 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:58:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.167.115.246] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:58:55 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2001 16:58:55.0948 (UTC) FILETIME=[8A6B58C0:01C0B871] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > This is one of the reasons that, despite being right-handed myself, I >use a left-handed bidding box when available, and whether available or >not, I always use them in a left-handed fashion. I find it much easier. >I do not think I would like bracketed ones though! I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but the way I've seen bidding boxes mounted on brackets, you can remove them easily yourself and place the box on the table until the end of the auction. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 03:12:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2THCLq19800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 03:12:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2THCFt19795 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 03:12:15 +1000 (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 JAA02509; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:12:10 -0800 Message-Id: <200103291712.JAA02509@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:19:21 +0100." Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:12:10 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >> >LHO deals and opens 1NT; partner passes; RHO bids 2H. This is in the > >> >ACBL, where "Transfer" must be announced if 2H is a transfer, and > >> >other non-standard uses must be alerted ("standard" is that 2H is > >> >natural and nonforcing). There is no announcement or Alert. I glance > >> >at the convention card nearest me, and notice that transfers are not > >> >marked on the card. I then bid 3D. LHO passes. Partner asks about > >> >the 2H call and is told that it is a transfer. > >> > > >> >If I call the TD at that point, I have the right to change my call. > >> >However, if I don't call the TD right away, do we lose the right to an > >> >adjustment if my 3D call was based on misinformation and there was > >> >damage? [snip] > >So what has to happen for "attention to be drawn to an irregularity"? > >Do the Laws or the WBF or anyone have a definite answer to this, or do > >we have to guess? > > You are concentrating on the wrong Law. It is L21B3 that means you do > not get adjustment for a call that could have been changed under L21B1. > > However, if you really want an interpretation for when attention has > been called to an irregularity, then I think a conversation such as: > > "What is the double?" > "Sputnik." > "Why did you not alert? > "Sorry, I forgot." > > clearly draws attention to the irregularity. Now L9B1 demands all four > players should call the Director. Sigh . . . this doesn't answer my question. Of course, if the last two lines of this conversation take place, then L9B1 requires that the Director be called. But I already acknowledged this in my previous post: # If partner or I had commented at that point, "That should have been # announced", or "That's not what your CC says", or something to that # effect, then it's clear that attention was being drawn to the # irregularity, and it would have been a clear violation of L9B1 not to # call the Director right then. The real question is, what if the conversation is only half as long? > "What is the double?" > "Sputnik." Now does L9B1 apply? Has attention been drawn to the irregularity? If so, why? This still hasn't been answered. The above conversation is, in effect, the one that took place at my table. Also, in Brighton appeal 2000 #3, there was no indication that any conversation beyond the simple question about the meaning of a bid, and the correct response, took place. If any additional comments or questions such as "Why did you not alert?" did occur, they weren't reported in the appeal book. So if L9B1 still applies here (after the shorter conversation), it still hasn't been explained why it does. But *if* L9B1 doesn't apply, then it would be legal not to call the TD at this point. If the TD is called later, then it would appear that the NO's haven't lost their rights to an adjustment here. As Marvin said: ## I thought the principle was that if a player is given the ## opportunity by the TD to change a call, but refuses to do so, then ## there can be no later adjustment. Since the TD wasn't called, the ## opportunity wasn't offered, it became too late to change a call, ## and a score adjustment is possible. and your explanation: ### It is important that we do not give law-breakers an advantage over ### law-followers. . . . would not be relevant. So I still don't know what the answer to my question is. -- 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 Mar 30 03:34:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2THYHD19847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 03:34:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2THYBt19842 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 03:34:11 +1000 (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 JAA02899; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:34:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200103291734.JAA02899@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:25:46 +0100." Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:34:07 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > In article , David Stevenson > writes > >John (MadDog) Probst writes > >>In article , David Stevenson > >> writes > >>> > >>> No-trumps. Dummy on lead. A real case. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> xx > >>> xx > >>> -- > >>> -- -- > >>> A x > >>> x KQT > >>> xx -- > >>> -- > >>> x > >>> AJx > >>> -- > >>> > >>> North leads the Dx, East plays the DK, South thinks for a *long* time, > >>>then plays the Hx! > >>> > >>> East naturally attempts to put West in with the DA, so South finesses > >>>and makes three diamond tricks! > >>> > >>> OK, it is a two trick revoke, so South is reduced from making three > >>>tricks to one. But after the first trick, East could have played a > >>>heart and made the rest. > >>> > >>> Do we adjust under L64C? > >>> > >>I don't. You might. there are those who do. > >> > >>"Would you have done better if the revoke had not occurred?" > >>"No" > > > > because East "knew" what was going on, and is trying a double shot. Well, you're not going to win any points with David for this argument, since David believes double shots should be allowed. Although I have some sympathy for David's position, I can accept that, in the case of misinformation about a pair's agreements, experienced players who "know", or have good reason to believe, that they've been misinformed, shouldn't be able to take a wild action to give them a free shot at a top and then ask for an MI adjustment when it doesn't work. However, I ABSOLUTELY CANNOT accept this same line of reasoning in a revoke case. The whole essence of bridge, and all (or almost all?) games in the whist family, is that you must follow suit if possible, and that when you don't, everyone else has a right to assume that all missing cards in the suit are in the other concealed hand(s). As far as I'm concerned, this right must be ABSOLUTE; to argue otherwise strikes at the foundation of bridge and all other whist games. Thus, when South shows out on the diamond, East has an ABSOLUTE right to assume his partner has all the missing diamonds, including the ace; thus, to play partner for the ace cannot in any way be considered a "wild, gambling, or irrational" action, or a double shot. Just my humble opinion (assuming that an opinion delivered in part in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS can reasonably be considered "humble") . . . -- 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 Mar 30 04:19:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TIIjY02523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:18:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TIIct02485 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:18:39 +1000 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:30:27 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CA6@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: [BLML] Shuffling Probabilities -- was To Catch A Cheat Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:30:27 -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 When a deck is shuffled a single time the probability that the card that was on the bottom remains on the bottom is 50% (1/2). The deck is divided into two halfs, each with a bottom card. The bottom card of one of the two halfs becomes the new bottom card of the deck. In an honest shuffle the probibility is 50% that the bottom card from a given stack becomes the bottom card of the deck. The probability that the original bottom card remains at the bottom over some number (N) of deals is 1/2 raised to the Nth power. The number of cards in the deck is not relevant in this calculation. However, there is also the possibility that the original bottom card does not remain there, but rather returns there as a result of truly random shuffles. If I pick up a deck arranged in truly random order and randomly shuffle it some number of times (zero or more) the probability that the Ace of Spaces (or any card you choose to name) is the bottom card is 1/52. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sent: 3/29/01 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat > From: Eric Landau > he makes the blatantly incorrect statement that the > chance of retaining the original bottom card throughout 16 random > shuffles is (1/52)**16 (about three octillion to one); the correct > figure is (1/2)**16 (about 65,500 to one). It's a little unclear what the correct probability is supposed to be. I've lost the URL now, I'm afraid, but wasn't the initial statement the probability of having a specific card (ace of spades?) on the bottom and retaining it there for 16 shuffles? In that case it would be 1/52*(1/2)^16. Of course the statement in the article is still wrong, but at least this way there is a 52 in the formula. I am, however, inclined to attribute the problem to the article's author, not to Mr. Beck. It wasn't clear to me that Mr. Beck himself claims to be an expert on mathematics, though clearly he claims to be an expert on card tricks and shuffling, a "mechanic" as some say. A mathematical formula is something that it's easy for a non- mathematically-inclined reporter (or editor) to miscopy, even if he is given the correct formula in the first place. Also, a non-expert may not realize that a subtle rephrasing of the problem (e.g. specific card versus any card) changes the answer. None of this says much about Mr. Blubaugh's guilt or innocence, of course. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 30 04:33:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TIXFH07584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:33:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TIX8t07546 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:33:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-100-172.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.100.172]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2TIWov04470 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:32:50 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002301c0b87e$90bbf100$ac64063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:46:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "We will now discuss in a little more detail the struggle for existence." - Charles Darwin. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? > ------------------- \x/ ------------------- > > When I wrote this I made a mistake. I do not > believe this. Equity IMO (and DWS is still on the > fence) must be judged from the point at which > the first revoke occurred. I noted that Grattan > reported that Edgar had intended this to be > the case ... not that that necessarily means we > should treat it as the perfect truth. > +=+ Are you doubting my word? I did not use the expression 'intended' - only that he told me this was how it was under the laws. +=+ > ---------------- \x/ ---------------- > > > > Now David (Wed 28 Mar 2001 16:52) has > > asked us about equity in a four card ending. If > > he believes L64C equity is "in the hand at the > > point it was dealt", how does he expect us to > > resolve it unless we are given the full deal? > +=+ I think the equity changes with the to-and-fro of the auction and the play. The equity in the hand when there is an infraction is that existing in the instant after the last legal action. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 05:10:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TJ9gP20076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:09:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TJ9Zt20044 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:09:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA18727 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:09:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA25495 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:09:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:09:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103291909.OAA25495@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Shuffling Probabilities -- was To Catch A Cheat X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: John Nichols > If I pick up a deck arranged in truly random order and randomly > shuffle it some number of times (zero or more) the probability that the Ace > of Spaces (or any card you choose to name) is the bottom card is 1/52. As far as I can tell, all three posts in this sub-thread (Eric's, mine, and John's) have been mathematically correct. What this tells us is that the correct probability depends critically on exactly what is being calculated, i.e. on _exactly_ how the problem is stated. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 05:16:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TJGL520238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:16:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TJGFt20234 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:16:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA19037 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:16:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA25506 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:16:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:16:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103291916.OAA25506@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:00:14 +0100 > +=+ "The Secretary drew attention to those > who argued that where an action was stated in > the laws (or regulations) to be authorized, > other actions if not expressly forbidden were > also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this > is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that > the laws define correct procedure and anything > not specified in the laws is 'extraneous' and it > may be deemed an infraction of law if information > deriving from it is used in the auction or the > play." - WBFLC minute, 24th August, 1998. Thanks for quoting the exact text. > In simple terms this means that you will > not be allowed to use information from the > extraneous action, and this is tantamount to > prohibition. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I've been pondering this for two days now, and I'm confused. Suppose I'm about to become declarer, and LHO is thinking about his lead. While I wait, I pick up the opponents' CC to check their carding agreements. Are you saying that I am not allowed to use the information I discover? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 05:20:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TJJoE20254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:19:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cpimssmtpu04.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu04.email.msn.com [207.46.181.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TJJit20250 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:19:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk ([65.224.0.123]) by cpimssmtpu04.email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3225); Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:19:36 -0800 Message-ID: <02c101c0b884$de1b5160$d400e041@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329081317.00b0f170@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:17:15 -0800 Organization: his wit's end MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2001 19:19:37.0440 (UTC) FILETIME=[31F0CE00:01C0B885] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote > I am too ignorant about the Blubaugh case to have an opinion on his > guilt or innocence, but I am dubious about Mr. Beck's credibility. He > is cited in the article as an authority on the mathematics of his > specialty, but he makes the blatantly incorrect statement that the > chance of retaining the original bottom card throughout 16 random > shuffles is (1/52)**16 (about three octillion to one); the correct > figure is (1/2)**16 (about 65,500 to one). I think the paragraph was poorly written. Try this: If you shuffle 16 separate decks (perhaps 2 boards in each of 8 Swiss matches), the chance that one specific card (Ace of Diamonds) will occupy one specific location (bottom of the deck) in each of those decks is (1/52)**16. Is that correct enough to justify the B+ I got in math for non-majors? It seems to me that it is what the article is trying to say. Chris -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 05:39:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TJdU820286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:39:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f2TJdPt20282 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:39:25 +1000 (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 f2TJdKW52247 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:39:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329143053.00b0ea30@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, 29 Mar 2001 14:40:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Shuffling Probabilities -- was To Catch A Cheat In-Reply-To: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CA6@al194.minfod.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:30 PM 3/29/01, John wrote: >When a deck is shuffled a single time the probability that the card >that was >on the bottom remains on the bottom is 50% (1/2). The deck is divided >into >two halfs, each with a bottom card. The bottom card of one of the two >halfs >becomes the new bottom card of the deck. In an honest shuffle the >probibility is 50% that the bottom card from a given stack becomes the >bottom card of the deck. > >The probability that the original bottom card remains at the bottom over >some number (N) of deals is 1/2 raised to the Nth power. The number of >cards in the deck is not relevant in this calculation. > >However, there is also the possibility that the original bottom card does >not remain there, but rather returns there as a result of truly random >shuffles. If I pick up a deck arranged in truly random order and randomly >shuffle it some number of times (zero or more) the probability that >the Ace >of Spaces (or any card you choose to name) is the bottom card is 1/52. Since we're already way off topic, you might be interested in a further irrelevancy. I have seen people who could do this so smoothly you would never notice. At one time I could do it rather clumsily myself; making it look natural, however, is VERY hard: Cut the deck exactly in half, 26 cards in each stack. Riffle-shuffle them starting with the original bottom card, alternating the cards exactly, so that the original ordering 1,2,3,4,...,51,52 becomes 1,27,2,28,...,26,52. Repeat this seven more times (eight shuffles total). The deck will have been restored to its original order. 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 Mar 30 05:48:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TJmGX20312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:48:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TJmAt20308 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:48:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-018.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.210]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA52590 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 20:48:00 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 20:48:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0B891.A629CD60.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 20:48:45 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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 DWS asked: No-trumps. Dummy on lead. A real case. -- xx xx -- -- -- A x x KQT xx -- -- x AJx -- North leads the Dx, East plays the DK, South thinks for a *long* time, then plays the Hx! East naturally attempts to put West in with the DA, so South finesses and makes three diamond tricks! OK, it is a two trick revoke, so South is reduced from making three tricks to one. But after the first trick, East could have played a heart and made the rest. Do we adjust under L64C? If Declarer followed to the Diamond lead with a small Diamond the defenders would get all 4 tricks. So the defenders have been insufficiently compensated for the damage caused and we adjust. I don't think that East is trying a double shot. If declarer shows out of Diamonds it is reasonable to assume West has the missing Diamonds. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 06:06:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TK6SN20353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:06:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.wrs.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TK6Ht20349 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:06:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA27095 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:05:40 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:07:40 -0500 Message-ID: <003201c0b88b$e8888580$7d04e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329143053.00b0ea30@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Personally, I am saddened by the entire affair regarding John Blubaugh. Regardless of whether or not he is guilty or innocent, this certainly doesn't reflect well on the game. One quick comment. I have no idea whether Blubaugh is guilty or innocent. I've never meet or spoken to the man. However, I don't like to draw any conclusions without the ability to inspect primary source materials. I have heard reference to a video tape prepared by the ACBL which has been interpreted to suggest that Blubaugh was controlling the shuffle. I have no idea regarding whether this was a consistant occurence or whether it was an isolated incident that had been creamed from a larger data sample. Quick question: Does anyone know how many hands worth of video tape the ACBl shot and how many hands indicating a controlled shuffle were presented? Regardless, I am never going to get to see the raw data. I suspect that it should surface if this actually goes to trial. this might prove interesting. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOsOWC7FdMFbo8dHHEQICLgCfZO1bQNaonzVTel3qfPZ/V4ubP50AoPTM yW1+UTO8zlq1gTkfWrQWKK2W =0hQM -----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 Mar 30 06:31:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TKVE220395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:31:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TKV8t20390 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:31:08 +1000 (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 f2TKV3N05310 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:31:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329151114.00b081a0@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, 29 Mar 2001 15:31:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat In-Reply-To: <02c101c0b884$de1b5160$d400e041@uymfdlvk> References: <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329081317.00b0f170@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:17 PM 3/29/01, Chris wrote: >Eric wrote > > I am too ignorant about the Blubaugh case to have an opinion on his > > guilt or innocence, but I am dubious about Mr. Beck's credibility. He > > is cited in the article as an authority on the mathematics of his > > specialty, but he makes the blatantly incorrect statement that the > > chance of retaining the original bottom card throughout 16 random > > shuffles is (1/52)**16 (about three octillion to one); the correct > > figure is (1/2)**16 (about 65,500 to one). > > I think the paragraph was poorly written. Try this: If you >shuffle 16 separate decks (perhaps 2 boards in each of 8 Swiss >matches), the >chance that one specific card (Ace of Diamonds) will occupy one specific >location (bottom of the deck) in each of those decks is (1/52)**16. > > Is that correct enough to justify the B+ I got in math for >non-majors? It seems to me that it is what the article is trying to say. That is correct, but I very much doubt that that's what the article was trying to say, since then it would have no relevance to the Blubaugh case. If Mr. Blubaugh was indeed cheating, I'm sure the SA, or DA, or any other specific card, was not involved. Presumably he would have been cutting or overhand-shuffling until he "liked" the bottom card (or even not, just noting what it was -- knowing the location of even a deuce is a big edge), then riffle-shuffling to keep it on the bottom, then dealing it to his partner (or to a known opponent). I took Mr. Beck's point to be that the odds of keeping a card (whatever it is) on the bottom of the deck through a large number of random riffle-shuffles are so long as to suggest that it was being done deliberately. The real flaw in Mr. Beck's argument is that nobody really riffle-shuffles randomly. When you shuffle, you perform a series of small hand and finger movements that combine into a smooth, uniform shuffling motion. By habit, you will naturally tend to make those small movements in the same sequence every time. I'd be willing to bet that most shufflers either retain the original bottom card or exchange it almost every time they shuffle. 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 Mar 30 06:32:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TKWiA20408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:32:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TKWct20404 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:32:39 +1000 (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 MAA06416; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:32:34 -0800 Message-Id: <200103292032.MAA06416@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:16:12 EST." <200103291916.OAA25506@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:32:34 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > I've been pondering this for two days now, and I'm confused. > > Suppose I'm about to become declarer, and LHO is thinking about his > lead. While I wait, I pick up the opponents' CC to check their carding > agreements. Are you saying that I am not allowed to use the > information I discover? Gosh, I hope that's not the case!! As has been discussed on at least one of RGB and BLML, it's a *good* idea for declarer to check the carding agreements before the lead. Suppose you wait until the lead, and opening leader leads the king, which is usually from A-K or K-Q. If declarer holds the ace or queen, or both, he can figure out which sequence leader has without looking at the CC. However, if he doesn't look at the CC in that case, then next time he does look at it he's broadcasting the information that he doesn't possess a higher honor. If he does look at the CC, some defenders will draw an incorrect inference that declarer doesn't hold the missing honors, and will then get upset and try to invoke L73F2. (Cases like this have been mentioned on RGB/BLML.) So it seems best to look at the lead agreements before the lead is made. Would there be any harm in modifying 40E2 so that declarer is allowed to look at the opponents' convention card at any time after the final pass of the auction (not just at his turn to play)? -- 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 Mar 30 06:36:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TKZuQ21469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:35:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TKZot21434 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:35:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:36:21 -0800 Message-ID: <006101c0b88f$cf370ee0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200103291712.JAA02509@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:35:27 -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: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > "What is the double?" > > "Sputnik." > > "Why did you not alert? > > "Sorry, I forgot." > > > > clearly draws attention to the irregularity. Now L9B1 demands all four > > players should call the Director. > > Sigh . . . this doesn't answer my question. Of course, if the last > two lines of this conversation take place, then L9B1 requires that the > Director be called. But I already acknowledged this in my previous > post: > > # If partner or I had commented at that point, "That should have been > # announced", or "That's not what your CC says", or something to that > # effect, then it's clear that attention was being drawn to the > # irregularity, and it would have been a clear violation of L9B1 not to > # call the Director right then. > > The real question is, what if the conversation is only half as long? > > > "What is the double?" > > "Sputnik." > > Now does L9B1 apply? Has attention been drawn to the irregularity? > If so, why? This still hasn't been answered. I say no. In many such cases, no one may even realize there has been an irregularity. > > But *if* L9B1 doesn't apply, then it would be legal not to call the TD > at this point. If the TD is called later, then it would appear that > the NO's haven't lost their rights to an adjustment here. As Marvin > said: > > ## I thought the principle was that if a player is given the > ## opportunity by the TD to change a call, but refuses to do so, then > ## there can be no later adjustment. Since the TD wasn't called, the > ## opportunity wasn't offered, it became too late to change a call, > ## and a score adjustment is possible. > Slight correction: If a player is given the opportunity to change a call, there can be no later adjustment that includes a modification of the player's decision. Say I become aware of an opposing MI infraction during the auction, after I call but before partner calls. If I call attention to it, the TD will allow me to change my call if it is probable that I made it as a result of the MI. My decision is final and the call then established cannot be changed within a score adjustment. This has nothing to do with L21B3, which deals with adjustments when no change of call is possible. It has to do with the fact that I cannot later claim that my chosen call was based on MI, since the MI was corrected. But no Law says I have to call attention to the infraction. L9A uses the word "may." If I call attention to it after partner calls, then it becomes too late for me to change my call, and per L21B3 my side may receive a score adjustment. Of course the adjusters will consider that MI known by me is not MI at all for me if they think I had the right information at a time when I could have had my call changed. However, if through ignorance I may not have known that there was an infraction, or that I could get my call changed because of it, and no one called attention to the infraction, a score adjustment may be in order. But suppose it is my partner, ignorant of the infraction, who made a call that may have been based on the MI. I was aware of the infraction, but chose not to comment on it until the deal was played out, which is my right. A score adjustment that reflects a change in partner's call(s) may be in order, but probably not one that changes mine. As to the ethics of not calling attention to an irregularity immediately, I have an analogy: I know an opponent has revoked. I say nothing until the revoke is established, whereupon I call attention to it and summon the TD. Anything wrong with that? Anyway, Adam, I'm afraid that if you realized before partner's call that there had been an infraction, and knew you could have altered your call by immediately calling attention to the MI and summoning the TD, then you could not later claim that your bidding was adversely affected. A score adjustment would be theoretically possible, but not on that basis. Since partner had no MI before calling, I don't see how any score adjustment could follow. 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 Mar 30 06:56:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TKtxG28436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:55:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TKtrt28401 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:55:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:56:26 -0800 Message-ID: <008501c0b892$9d42a360$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:52:00 -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: "Todd Zimnoch" > >From: David Stevenson > > This is one of the reasons that, despite being right-handed myself, I > >use a left-handed bidding box when available, and whether available or > >not, I always use them in a left-handed fashion. I find it much easier. > >I do not think I would like bracketed ones though! > > I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but the way I've seen bidding > boxes mounted on brackets, you can remove them easily yourself and place the > box on the table until the end of the auction. > Not so easy, IMO. Anyway, the convenience of having them off the table, providing space for a convention card on the corner (its best location), makes up for any inconvenience involved in using them. Many players put their bidding box on a nearby chair or small table when brackets aren't being used. That's a good idea for increasing table space, but I don't like the method for myself. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 06:57:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TKvrE29091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:57:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TKvgt29018 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:57:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA11023 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:59:43 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010329145705.007e4c40@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:57:05 -0600 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329151114.00b081a0@127.0.0.1> References: <02c101c0b884$de1b5160$d400e041@uymfdlvk> <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329081317.00b0f170@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 PM 3/29/2001 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >any other specific card, was not involved. Presumably he would have >been cutting or overhand-shuffling until he "liked" the bottom card (or >even not, just noting what it was -- knowing the location of even a >deuce is a big edge), then riffle-shuffling to keep it on the bottom, >then dealing it to his partner (or to a known opponent). I took Mr. >Beck's point to be that the odds of keeping a card (whatever it is) on >the bottom of the deck through a large number of random riffle-shuffles >are so long as to suggest that it was being done deliberately. > >The real flaw in Mr. Beck's argument is that nobody really >riffle-shuffles randomly. When you shuffle, you perform a series of >small hand and finger movements that combine into a smooth, uniform >shuffling motion. By habit, you will naturally tend to make those >small movements in the same sequence every time. I'd be willing to bet >that most shufflers either retain the original bottom card or exchange >it almost every time they shuffle. I'm not sure this is true--I know for a fact that I, myself, sometimes do and sometimes don't change the bottom card when I riffle. I have gotten into the habit of deliberately performing a final overhand shuffle after I am done riffling, making sure that the bottom card is changed, just in case. What is most damaging in Beck's testimony is the claim that Blubaugh _looked at the cards_ and then performed a series of shuffles with an ace at the bottom of the deck. There is no reason for anyone to ever look at the faces of the cards during a shuffle, and to look at the faces of the cards _and_ have an ace at the bottom _and_ have that ace stay there through a series of riffles is, in combination, extremely damning. I, too, have never met Blubaugh, have never heard of Beck, and have never seen the tape. I am sure the ACBL doesn't want to comment extensively on the case when facing a lawsuit, but I wish I didn't have to hear the details third-hand from writers in KC and Dallas that aren't bridge experts-- I hadn't even heard about the case until someone forwarded the KC article to me for reasons that didn't even have anything to do with bridge! [It's a long story.] >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 07:31:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TLV7L10875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:31:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin1.bigpond.com (juicer13.bigpond.com [139.134.6.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TLV2t10849 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:31:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.53]) by mailin1.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GAZANV00.69I for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:35:55 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-181.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.181]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Little-MailRouter V2.9b 13/3648624); 30 Mar 2001 07:30:29 Message-ID: <01be01c0b897$712fbba0$b1e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] pre-alert Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:30:13 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >>Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>Another interesting issue on the problem of 'when to look >>> at your convention card'. >>>Really, the principles should be : >>> >>>1) you are allowed to look at your opps' CC at any time >>> you have it at your disposal, especially so before the >>>encounter if provisions are made to enable you to do it ; >> >> Put me in the Gill/Nicholls camp. You are not allowed to >> look at a CC when it is someone else's time to play or call. > >I am in between. I think that David/Gill/Nicholls camp makes it >impossible to correctly alert (see Tim West-meads example >for UK - I am sure it is the same everywhere). > >Another example (this time Australia) >RHO You LHO Prd >(1C)* Pass (1S)* 2H > >*=alert - 1C=strong >Partner doesn't ask about 1S and bids 2H - should you alert. > >It may not cross your mind too - except that 1S=bal positive >and your agreements means that 2H shows majors. [Partner >didn't ask because they knew what 1S meant.] > >It just doesn't seem right that I have to break the laws or >the alert regs. Assuming that BLML posters are allowed to change camps after reading other people's posts, may I switch to the Newman camp please? >Why isn't the law changed to allow you to refer to CC when >you are the next person in the partnership to take action. >i.e. when it is your turn to bid/play or RHO (or if you are >declarer at any time). > >This would reduce UI problems of looking when it was It would allow proper alerts, and it may also help keep >bidding in tempo as you could try and understand the >auction before it was your turn to bid/play. Now that I think about it, I'm certain that I must quite often have broken the Law about "when I'm allowed to look at the CC", mostly when I've been declarer. For example, last Wednesday night I was in 4S after the bidding had started on my left (1C) - X by partner - (2H) alerted (but not asked about during the bidding). LHO led face down, and I asked about the bidding and 2H in particular. LHO (Pauline) gave me a look which clearly said "I wish you hadn't asked; I'm not sure" and I said "Do you mind if I look at your CC?" as I turned over the CC and saw "weak jump responses" written there. "The problem is that we agreed to play 'fit-showing jumps in competition' and, as you know, DK and I aren't a regular partnership, so I'm not sure what applies here", Pauline explained. The lead was then turned face up. I had been entitled to ask about the bidding (though technically not about their card play agreements at that particular time - is that correct?) but my reference to their CC at that time was a breach of Law, wasn't it? An easy mistake to make, I think. However I would be happier if Pauline's and my exchange were legal because it was a timely way for me to see the CC, appreciate her explaining problem and correctly deduce for myself that DK had a fit-showing jump. I think DWS et al (me?) were right about the situation under the current Laws, but that doesn't mean that the Law should remain as is. Whilst this is not as important as, say, Law 25B, when it comes to a Law which needs to be rectified, I am definitely joining the camp which thinks this Law is not optimum. 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 Mar 30 07:56:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TLucl17281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:56:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com (juicer38.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TLuYt17277 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:56:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.53]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GAZBUF00.4RL for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:01:27 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-181.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.181]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Equilateral-MailRouter V2.9b 13/3656224); 30 Mar 2001 07:56:01 Message-ID: <027001c0b89b$02282180$b1e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:55:45 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alan leBendig wrote: >I thought some might be interested in reading this article >about John Blubaugh and some of the evidence against >him. I know there are many doubts... > >http://www.dmagazine.com/magazine/legends0301.shtml I realise this is a side-issue but ... In serious American Teams events, is it still normal even in the 20th Century for players to deal the cards that they will play? Here in Australia we are lucky enough to have predealt hands and hand records at all serious Pairs and Teams games as well as at all the club games that I've played in in recent years. It feels like years since I had to deal any cards at a duplicate bridge club. Even when one does deal manually, one would think that a procedure whereby players deal hands which are played at tables other than their own might be manageable? Perhaps not? Peter Gill Sydney, Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 08:26:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TMPle19358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:25:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TMPet19328 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:25:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp240-140.worldonline.nl [195.241.240.140]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 577801C5FD1; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:04:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003601c0b894$359fa760$8cf0f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "John Nichols" Subject: Re: [BLML] Shuffling Probabilities -- was To Catch A Cheat Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:07:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Nichols wrote: >When a deck is shuffled a single time the probability >that the card that was on the bottom remains >on the bottom is 50% (1/2). The deck is divided into >two halfs, each with a bottom card. >The bottom card of one of the two halfs >becomes the new bottom card of the deck. >In an honest shuffle the probability is 50% that >the bottom card from a given stack becomes the >bottom card of the deck. That would hold for a riffle-shuffle. I always use a "proper shufffle". I am sorry I do not know the proper English expression for this procedure - I mean that I take all of the deck in one hand, transfer some of the top cards to my other hand, place the remaining stack on top of the new stack, holding the combined cards temporarily with both hands, and separate some more top cards to the top of the new stack, and repeat this transfer until all cards have been transferred to my other hand. Thus, I have completed one shuffle; of course, I would repeat this shuffle-procedure several times (seven or so). If executed honestly, the probability that the bottom card remains bottom after one round of shuffling this way is ZERO. That is why I prefer this way of shuffling. However, an expert at it could create the impression that the deck is being shuffled this way whereas in reality he leaves the order of the cards undisturbed .... Cheers, Jac (Jac Fuchs) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 08:39:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TMdDC24062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:39:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TMd6t24026 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:39:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA24354 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:46:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200103292246.RAA24354@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Shuffling Probabilities -- was To Catch A Cheat Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200103291909.OAA25495@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200103291909.OAA25495@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:46:06 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 29 March 2001 at 14:09, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: John Nichols >> If I pick up a deck arranged in truly random order and randomly >> shuffle it some number of times (zero or more) the probability that the Ace >> of Spaces (or any card you choose to name) is the bottom card is 1/52. > >As far as I can tell, all three posts in this sub-thread (Eric's, mine, >and John's) have been mathematically correct. What this tells us is >that the correct probability depends critically on exactly what is >being calculated, i.e. on _exactly_ how the problem is stated. And, of course, what kind of shuffle you are executing. I have only seen one person Baccarat-shuffle at the bridge table (my partner, and he dealt cards for a living, so he could Baccarat-shuffle very well), but if that is done correctly, the chance that any card is on the bottom of the deck is 1/52. If you are overhand-shuffling; well, I don't play anything where overhand-shuffling (solely) and money are at the same table. But the "semi-random overhand", where alternating packs go over and under the already shuffled cards, might get you a 1/52 for any card. When I started playing bridge seriously, I stopped practicing my card magic. Even so, and I never was very good, I probably could still control top-and-bottom in an overhand shuffle with only about half of you noticing, less if I didn't tell you I was trying it. Ok, bottom only. Top-and-bottom with a day's practice. And with a riffle shuffle, it's *easy* to control the bottom card, as others have mentioned. Just drop it first from whichever hand gets the bottom packet. The moral? If you are at all suspicious, Scarne-cut top, regular cut (make sure to not hit a break you used earlier). If you are still suspicious, *walk away*. 's been the same for over 60 years. Note: I have no knowledge nor interest in the Blubaugh case (save curiosity, of course). My only complaint about the man previously is that some of his webpage used Microsoft-only suit symbols; 1(copyright sign) was really hard to work out. And when this was pointed out to him, his reply was haughty at least (though that could easily have been due to lack of experience with the web-world). 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 Mar 30 08:52:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TMqcJ28792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:52:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TMqJt28696 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:52:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ilGx-000NZ4-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:52:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:43:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid References: <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329074535.00b0c830@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329074535.00b0c830@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 12:38 PM 3/28/01, Herman wrote: > >>And then sometimes you come accross a casae where 3D is >>natural and you have to decide on 2D. >> >>I have always interpreted this as "conventional in the >>auction that the underbidder was thinking of". >> >>So you need to establish what the player was thinking. If >>he has majors, and it is clear that he was bidding over 1NT, >>then certainly it is conventional. > >This appears to contradict what seems to be a general view on BLML, >that L27B2 was revised to reduce problems with UI after an insufficient >bid. To be honest, I have never heard this view expressed before, and I do not think I agree with it. > If the issue is UI, and if there are multiple possible "meanings" >for the insufficient bid depending on what the bidder thought the >actual auction was, and if any of those meanings could lead to applying >L27B1 instead of L27B2, then it shouldn't matter what the bidder was >thinking of (if, indeed, he himself knows), because his partner doesn't >know. > >I'd argue that we don't need L27B2 for this purpose at all; L27B1(b) is >sufficient to deal with UI from insufficient bids. But if we retain it >in future versions of TFLB, I'd argue strongly for its applicability >being made dependent on the conventionality of only the substituted >bid. Trying to devine the "meaning" of an insufficient bid (which is >meaningingless in most partnerships; indeed, for an insufficient bid to >have a "meaning" in the normal sense of the word is illegal in the >ACBL) sounds like more powerful mind-reading than the sort we go out of >our way to avoid in other parts of the law. I agree with this, but in fact would go further and allow correction always. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 08:52:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TMqeG28802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:52:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TMqJt28694 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:52:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ilGx-000NZ3-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:52:12 +0100 Message-ID: <9IE+zSBMW2w6Ew39@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:40:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid References: <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be> <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329083525.00ab4b90@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329083525.00ab4b90@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 04:55 AM 3/29/01, John wrote: > >>In a National event I would take the player away from the table and ask >>(and I'm pretty sure DWS would too). If the substituted call is >>conventional I would rule without further comment. If the substituted >>call is natural I would tell the table whether I deemed the undercall to >>be natural or conventional as it makes a difference to the ruling. I >>would then rule. I'd also stand by so that if the offender became a >>defender I would tell his partner not to use the UI. etc. > >This does appear to be what L27B requires, but I submit that it >demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the law. Note what the TD must do >in some circumstances: > >Step 1. Determine whether the insufficient bid was intended to be >conventional or not. > >Step 2. Rule under either L27B1 or L27B2 depending on the outcome of >step 1. Note that even if you do not make an explicit statement as >John does, the ruling itself tells the table what the outcome of step 1 >was. > >Step 3. Warn the insufficient bidder's partner that THE INFORMATION YOU >JUST GAVE HIM YOURSELF AT STEP 2 is unauthorized, therefore he must >bend over backwards etc. > >It feels wrong for the law to burden a player with the obligation to >avoid taking advantage of UI which it itself creates. Perhaps it is wrong. In my view rulings from TDs are AI to all players. It is not really relevant, of course. The insufficient bid is UI, so it does not matter whether pd is told whether it was artificial or not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 08:52:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TMqb928786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:52:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2TMqJt28695 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:52:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ilGx-000NZ5-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:52:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:45:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >I'm mystified. > >In the 'Double Revoke' string, John (MadDog) Probst (Thu 22 Mar 2001 03:12) >wrote: > >>Equity is the equity in the hand at the point it was dealt. > >When I questioned this view, David Stevenson (Fri 23 Mar 2001 02:29) >emphatically (and monosyllabically) supported it. Since he has not >subsequently recanted, I assume he still believes it. > >Now David (Wed 28 Mar 2001 16:52) has asked us about equity in a four card >ending. If he believes L64C equity is "in the hand at the point it was >dealt", how does he expect us to resolve it unless we are given the full >deal? Very cunning. No, I am not falling for this one. I supported it monosyllabically in a specific case: it was not a general comment. But yes, it may be true, it still seems to be under discussion. However, the whole hand is not necessary, because equity also depends on the way the play has gone, so the rest of the hand is irrelevant. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 09:24:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TNO0E10059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:24:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f61.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TNNst10029 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:23:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:23:47 -0800 Received: from 132.233.247.5 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:23:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [132.233.247.5] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:23:46 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2001 23:23:47.0024 (UTC) FILETIME=[4DC5ED00:01C0B8A7] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > I supported it monosyllabically in a specific case: it was not a >general comment. But yes, it may be true, it still seems to be under >discussion. However, the whole hand is not necessary, because equity >also depends on the way the play has gone, so the rest of the hand is >irrelevant. Is equity only altered by (unqualified, but presumably only legal) previous play or also the play at the infraction, play at a subsequent infraction, or (especially in the case of two revokes in the same suit) play at a previous infraction? -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 09:29:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TNTZs12075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:29:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2TNTTt12036 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:29:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.73.15] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14ilr1-0005dB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:29:23 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01c0b8a8$04588320$0f497ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200103292032.MAA06416@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:28:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A lot of people have written a lot of stuff, almost all of which makes sense. Unfortunately, a schism of sorts appears to have been created. Now, when people on both sides of a question make sense, the assumption is that the underlying premise is absurd - and so it appears to me in this case. Why should I not be allowed to look at the opponents' convention card whenever I like? If, in so doing, I transmit UI to partner - well, he is not allowed to use it. If he does use it, we will be penalised. But just as a hesitation is not of itself an infraction - it is only the use of the information transmitted by the hesitation that is illegal - so it should never be illegal to look at an enemy CC, only to act on any information thereby transmitted. Often, it happens that my RHO opens something conventional - say, a strong club. This is alerted. I, who have no intention of bidding and am (stupidly) constrained by EBU regulation not to ask what 1C means, pass in tempo. Then, in case my partner's next call may be conventional (as, for example, if the next hand responds a negative 1D and my partner bids 1NT to show minors), I will look at their CC in order to be prepared for whatever may befall. Is this wrong? I fail to see why. It may be procedurally incorrect, but that is not at all the same thing; if players who act normally are held to be in breach of regulation, then the regulation and not the players is what is wrong. If the (stupid) regulations were amended so that all alerts were followed by a mandatory question and explanation - or if, as in the USA, certain conventional bids were "announced" as opposed to merely alerted - then there would be no problem. The existing difficulty admits of no solution, for the arguments on either side are equally reasonable. 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 Mar 30 09:52:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2TNqH917264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:52:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2TNqCt17260 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:52:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010329235425.VRPP4907721.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:54:25 +1200 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "BLML" CC: Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Shuffling Probabilities -- was To Catch A Cheat Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:51:46 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010329235425.VRPP4907721.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Jac Fuchs" > Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:07:02 +0200 > To: "BLML" > CC: "John Nichols" > Subject: Re: [BLML] Shuffling Probabilities -- was To Catch A Cheat > > John Nichols wrote: > >When a deck is shuffled a single time the probability > >that the card that was on the bottom remains > >on the bottom is 50% (1/2). The deck is divided into > >two halfs, each with a bottom card. > >The bottom card of one of the two halfs > >becomes the new bottom card of the deck. > >In an honest shuffle the probability is 50% that > >the bottom card from a given stack becomes the > >bottom card of the deck. > > That would hold for a riffle-shuffle. Yes with a riffle-shuffle done randomly the probability is 1/2 that the bottom or top card remains the same. That is except if one tries to control either card then that card (or small group of cards) could remain the same with probability one. Also one could develop a bad habit that increased or decreased the chance of he bottom card remaining the same. >I always use a "proper > shufffle". I am sorry I do not know the proper English expression for > this procedure - I mean that I take all of the deck in one hand, > transfer some of the top cards to my other hand, place the remaining > stack on top of the new stack, holding the combined cards temporarily > with both hands, and separate some more top cards to the top of the > new stack, and repeat this transfer until all cards have been > transferred to my other hand. This is an overhand shuffle or some variation of it. >Thus, I have completed one shuffle; of > course, I would repeat this shuffle-procedure several times (seven or > so). > If executed honestly, the probability that the bottom card remains > bottom after one round of shuffling this way is ZERO. That is why I > prefer this way of shuffling. > However, an expert at it could create the impression that the deck is > being shuffled this way whereas in reality he leaves the order of the > cards undisturbed .... Or much more simply keep the top or bottom card the same with probability one. > > Cheers, > > Jac > (Jac Fuchs) > > > > 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 Fri Mar 30 10:36:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U0ZfO17301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:35:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2U0ZYt17297 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:35:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14imIJ-000Jxq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:57:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:48:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: <002301c0b87e$90bbf100$ac64063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002301c0b87e$90bbf100$ac64063e@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002301c0b87e$90bbf100$ac64063e@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott <=> >"We will now discuss in a little more detail > the struggle for existence." - Charles Darwin. > <==--==> >----- Original Message ----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: >Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:25 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? >> >------------------- \x/ ------------------- >> >> When I wrote this I made a mistake. I do not >> believe this. Equity IMO (and DWS is still on the >> fence) must be judged from the point at which >> the first revoke occurred. I noted that Grattan >> reported that Edgar had intended this to be >> the case ... not that that necessarily means we >> should treat it as the perfect truth. >> >+=+ Are you doubting my word? I did not use the >expression 'intended' - only that he told me this was >how it was under the laws. +=+ >> Why should I doubt your word? I was expressing the view that we don't have to treat Edgar's observations as gospel. >---------------- \x/ ---------------- >> > >> > Now David (Wed 28 Mar 2001 16:52) has >> > asked us about equity in a four card ending. If >> > he believes L64C equity is "in the hand at the >> > point it was dealt", how does he expect us to >> > resolve it unless we are given the full deal? >> >+=+ I think the equity changes with the to-and-fro >of the auction and the play. The equity in the hand >when there is an infraction is that existing in the >instant after the last legal action. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Mar 30 11:11:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U1AtG20225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:10:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2U1Amt20194 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:10:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP255.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.17]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26290 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:10:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200103291909430450.01F3B061@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <027001c0b89b$02282180$b1e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <027001c0b89b$02282180$b1e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:09:43 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >I realise this is a side-issue but ... > >In serious American Teams events, is it still normal even in >the 20th Century for players to deal the cards that they will play? This is what I've observed: In the Spingold and Vanderbilt, the boards in the early rounds are dealt at the table. I'm not sure when the pre-dealt hands start; certainly by the round of 16, perhaps the round of 32. The three-day board-a-match Reisinger has pre-dealt hands throughout, I think. NABCs have two Swiss team events, one in spring and one in fall. The spring event is two days; hands are dealt at the table on day 1 and at some tables on day 2. The top tables have pre-dealt hands on day 2. In the three-day Swiss in the fall, I'm told, pre-dealt hands used at all tables from day 2 on. In most tournament pairs events the hands are made from hand records; pre-dealt hands appear in the second day of multi-day pair events. Rarely a one-day regional pairs event will have a barometer final; those boards are pre-dealt perforce. I don't know why they don't have more pre-dealt boards; either they don't have enough board sets, or they don't have enough machines and operators to generate that many. >Even when one does deal manually, one would think that a >procedure whereby players deal hands which are played at >tables other than their own might be manageable? Perhaps not? Might be, but AFAIK it's not been tried hereabouts. Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 11:38:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U1cXS00210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:38:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2U1cIt00138 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:38:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14inri-000DZ2-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:38:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:19:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat References: <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329081317.00b0f170@127.0.0.1> <02c101c0b884$de1b5160$d400e041@uymfdlvk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329151114.00b081a0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329151114.00b081a0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >The real flaw in Mr. Beck's argument is that nobody really >riffle-shuffles randomly. When you shuffle, you perform a series of >small hand and finger movements that combine into a smooth, uniform >shuffling motion. By habit, you will naturally tend to make those >small movements in the same sequence every time. I'd be willing to bet >that most shufflers either retain the original bottom card or exchange >it almost every time they shuffle. I agree most do. It is because I had noticed that most do that I have made sure I do not, by deliberately alternating. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 11:38:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U1cTq00186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:38:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2U1cDt00104 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:38:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14inra-000DZ5-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:38:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:14:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >>John (MadDog) Probst writes >>>I don't. You might. there are those who do. >>> >>>"Would you have done better if the revoke had not occurred?" >>>"No" >because East "knew" what was going on, and is trying a double shot. Why? When I want to find my partner's red ace, I go for the suit that declarer has shown out of. The odds favour 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 Fri Mar 30 11:38:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U1cfg00250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:38:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2U1cHt00132 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:38:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14inrb-000DZ4-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:38:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:12:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid 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 Brambledown writes >The string on this subject has not picked up on the use of >"incontrovertibly" in L27B1("If both the insufficient bid and the bid >substituted are *incontrovertibly* not conventional..." (my emphasis)). As >TD, I do not concern myself with what the insufficient bidder intended only >what it is at all likely that he could have intended. I have never needed, >therefore, to call a player away from the table. > >For example, if the bidding has gone N: 1H E: 1C and EW are playing >Precision (say) then this cannot be said to be "incontrovertibly not >conventional" and L27B2 applies. In ruling this way I am not saying that >East intended to open 1C having missed the 1H opening, only that he *may >have done* and therefore L72B1 cannot apply. > >Am I wrong? It seems a very harsh method of ruling, and it certainly is against the advise of your National organisation, which trains club TDs to find out. In general the approach to rulings is to find out all relevant facts, then make a ruling. You are not finding out a fact which seems to be relevant. Of course, if you *really* rule the way you say, then you *never* permit a call t be corrected, do you? For example, 4S opening, 4C overcall. If the player thought the opening was 3C not 4S then 4C would be conventional. Since you cannot say it is incontrovertibly not conventional you cannot allow a cost-nothing correction to 5C. The conclusion I am coming to is that your approach is wrong, because [a] your NCBO has interpreted otherwise and [b] because your approach does not work. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 11:38:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U1cQb00170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:38:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2U1cCt00098 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:38:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14inra-000DZ6-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:38:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:17:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: <200103291734.JAA02899@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200103291734.JAA02899@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 > >John Probst wrote: > >> In article , David Stevenson >> writes >> >John (MadDog) Probst writes >> >>In article , David Stevenson >> >> writes >> >>> >> >>> No-trumps. Dummy on lead. A real case. >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> xx >> >>> xx >> >>> -- >> >>> -- -- >> >>> A x >> >>> x KQT >> >>> xx -- >> >>> -- >> >>> x >> >>> AJx >> >>> -- >> >>> >> >>> North leads the Dx, East plays the DK, South thinks for a *long* time, >> >>>then plays the Hx! >> >>> >> >>> East naturally attempts to put West in with the DA, so South finesses >> >>>and makes three diamond tricks! >> >>> >> >>> OK, it is a two trick revoke, so South is reduced from making three >> >>>tricks to one. But after the first trick, East could have played a >> >>>heart and made the rest. >> >>> >> >>> Do we adjust under L64C? >> >>> >> >>I don't. You might. there are those who do. >> >> >> >>"Would you have done better if the revoke had not occurred?" >> >>"No" >> > >> >> because East "knew" what was going on, and is trying a double shot. > >Well, you're not going to win any points with David for this argument, >since David believes double shots should be allowed. This is *extremely* unfair. I have pointed out on a few occasions that one of the troubles with BLML is that some people mix up interpreting the Laws and saying what they should be. I try very hard not to do this. While I would prefer the double shot to be allowed, it is not, and since we are discussing a current case and how to rule, then I assume the double shot is not permitted. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 12:10:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U2AS301141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:10:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium (ruthenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2U2AMt01137 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:10:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.159.151] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14ioMi-0004Ua-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 03:10:17 +0100 Message-ID: <00cf01c0b8be$7d7cc5c0$0f497ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 03:09:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >Now David (Wed 28 Mar 2001 16:52) has asked us about equity in a four card > >ending. If he believes L64C equity is "in the hand at the point it was > >dealt", how does he expect us to resolve it unless we are given the full > >deal? > > Very cunning. No, I am not falling for this one. > > I supported it monosyllabically in a specific case: it was not a > general comment. But yes, it may be true, it still seems to be under > discussion. However, the whole hand is not necessary, because equity > also depends on the way the play has gone, so the rest of the hand is > irrelevant. "Equity" is, according to Chambers, "a right, as founded on the laws of nature; moral justice of which laws are the imperfect expression". These words would repay much study by those who, according to the above, have the topic "under discussion". In context, what seems to me to be meant is this: if a man has not broken the laws of nature (for which read "the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge"), then his "equity" in the result of a particular deal remains what it was when the deal began, and should be meted to him accordingly. But if a man has himself broken the Laws, then he has no "equity" any longer. That is: if because your opponents break the Laws, you are placed in a position in which you would not have been had they not done so, your "equity" is the [most favourable likely] result that would have transpired absent the enemy infraction. But if, following the enemy infraction, you yourself break the Laws (as by revoking), then your original "equity" is lost, and the result you will receive should take account of both transgressions. Now, it is unclear from the foregoing whether you should or should not lose "equity" by following a course of action that, while not illegal, is "unnatural" (as by taking "irrational, wild or gambling action"). What is clear, however, is that "equity" does not depend on anything so specific as "the way the play has gone" on a particular hand. If, in the context of the position under discussion, it was "unnatural" for East to conclude that he was playing against an opponent who would exit from dummy with a diamond, knowing that the enemy had eight minor-suit winners with which to take the last five tricks, then there is at least a case for saying that when he returned a diamond, East had forfeited his original "equity" in the deal. But this cannot be determined without far more information than was given in the original question. It is, in short, reasonable enough to ask for a full description of events leading up to the position quoted, and unhelpful to dismiss such a request as "irrelevant". [Obviously enough, what had happened was that declarer, after his long thought, concluded that his only chance was to play East for HA and DKQx in the ending. If East actually held that hand, South could simply duck the king of diamonds; it may have taken him some while to work out that he could also win it without loss of generality. Being a trick ahead of himself by this stage, South's plan was to win DA and exit with a heart; unfortunately, he played his heart exit before his diamond winner.] 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 Mar 30 12:10:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U2Aps01153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:10:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2U2Ait01146 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:10:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ioN3-0008LR-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:10:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 03:01:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: <200103291734.JAA02899@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip >>> >>> >>> >>> Do we adjust under L64C? >>> >>> >>> >>I don't. You might. there are those who do. >>> >> >>> >>"Would you have done better if the revoke had not occurred?" >>> >>"No" >>> > >>> >>> because East "knew" what was going on, and is trying a double shot. >> >>Well, you're not going to win any points with David for this argument, >>since David believes double shots should be allowed. > > This is *extremely* unfair. I have pointed out on a few occasions >that one of the troubles with BLML is that some people mix up >interpreting the Laws and saying what they should be. I try very hard >not to do this. While I would prefer the double shot to be allowed, it >is not, and since we are discussing a current case and how to rule, then >I assume the double shot is not permitted. > David and I very seldom disagree. We don't even disagree on the interpretation of L64C. David is still on the fence and I'm not. I draw attention to my sig - London played 5th Friday tonight -- John (MadDog) Probst blml simultaneous scores with Rottweiller 451 Mile End Road 14 0 11 4 14 0 2 12 just the 8 clear London E3 4PA 8 14 8 10 0 14 14 14 tops and 5 clear +44-(0)20 8983 5818 14 14 7 7 0 12 0 12 bottoms. Routine! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 12:12:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U2ClD01170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:12:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2U2Cft01166 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:12:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ioP0-000Ahg-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:12:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 03:03:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst writes >>>John (MadDog) Probst writes > >>>>I don't. You might. there are those who do. >>>> >>>>"Would you have done better if the revoke had not occurred?" >>>>"No" > >>because East "knew" what was going on, and is trying a double shot. > > Why? When I want to find my partner's red ace, I go for the suit that >declarer has shown out of. The odds favour me. > You mean East really *doesn't* have a count of the hand at trick 10? -- John (MadDog) Probst blml simultaneous scores /14 with Rottweiller 451 Mile End Road 14 0 11 4 14 0 2 12 just the 8 clear London E3 4PA 8 14 8 10 0 14 14 14 tops and 5 clear +44-(0)20 8983 5818 14 14 7 7 0 12 0 12 bottoms. Routine! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 12:42:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U2fgn01217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:41:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2U2fbt01213 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:41:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010330024131.QFHB1913.femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:41:31 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:45:44 -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: <002f01c0b6e6$f6d59660$3b30d2cc@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 ****** On this subject, some seem to think that face-down is the option for SOs. Actually face-up is the option, which if not taken leaves face-down as the legal requirement per L41 and its footnote. Face-down is a MUST in the ACBL's TD guide *Duplicate Decisions*, but I can't find the related regulation at the moment. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA ****** Umm... I looked on the last page of my FLB where it says: Law 41A & Law 45A: Face-down opening leads are required at all ACBL sanctioned contests Does that work for you :-) :-) FWIW: We had a light load of appeals again in KC - only 22- (15 from NABCs and 7 from Regional events) Of course, this was a tiny tournament - 9400 tables. Toronto and Las Vegas will be interesting to see what the trend does... (both of which will be gigantic after two unattractive sites in a row, I'm guessing at least 16,000 tables each) Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 15:36:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U5ZZU19839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:35:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2U5ZSt19813 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:35:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qta2e.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.168.78]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA05735 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:35:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <019701c0b8db$88a90220$4ea8aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <200103281840.KAA12762@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:37:37 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote > > My vote would go for allowing the player to correct to the lowest > legal bid in the same denomination regardless. No-one has ever given me > any convincing argument why this is wrong. there will be UI problems, > but there are anyway. > OK, let me try. More than once I have faced something that is sometimes called two-way DONT: For example, a hand with diamonds and a major bids 2 diamonds over our 1NT. A hand with just diamonds bids 1D first, then calmly changes it to 2 diamonds, sometimes after saying "oh, I did not see the 1NT" (which was announced 11--13, by the way). *This* 2 diamonds bid is natural! That is why it is called two-way DONT. That is blatant, of course, but many ACBL directors allow it when coming from inexperienced players. Some ACBL directors allow all corrections of insufficient bids, even those their partner points out, if the insufficient bidder answers "no" to the question "Did you intent to make an insufficient bid?" and if he also answers "yes" (even after pausing for thought) to the question "Would you like to make it sufficient?" Some directors do not even ask the first question, because obviously, nobody *intends* to make an insufficient bid. Does anybody find this example (as to why insufficient *conventional* bids are penalized more) at all convincing? Part of the problem, I think, was the official ACBL statement when we started using bidding boxes more and more (and even today) was that directors are to be "very liberal" in forgiving possible mechanical errors, without clearly defining what "very liberal" means in this context. I cringe when I hear rules this vague. Also, I tried discussing this a few years ago by phone with the ACBL office, and maybe I was not clear enough about something, but the principal explained to me while discussing this L27B2 case (where the insuffient bid would have been conventional) was an analogy to running a red light in front of a highway patrolman---sure it was illegal, but the patrolman is not required to stop you. I had previously thought that this kind of reasoning was not valid for a bridge director. Oh, and I still don't. My favorite directors all RTFLB and follow it, even when they might not have written the exact same law themselves. Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 15:37:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U5auP20311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:36:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2U5aot20280 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:36:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 21:37:23 -0800 Message-ID: <00e301c0b8db$65521280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 21:36:08 -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 Linda wrote: > ****** > On this subject, some seem to think that face-down is the option for > SOs. Actually face-up is the option, which if not taken leaves face-down > as the legal requirement per L41 and its footnote. Face-down is a MUST > in the ACBL's TD guide *Duplicate Decisions*, but I can't find the > related regulation at the moment. > > Marv > > Umm... I looked on the last page of my FLB where it says: > > Law 41A & Law 45A: Face-down opening leads are required > at all ACBL sanctioned contests > > Does that work for you :-) :-) Thanks, Linda. No need for a regulation, it's the LAW! > > FWIW: > > We had a light load of appeals again in KC - only 22- > (15 from NABCs and 7 from Regional events) > > Of course, this was a tiny tournament - 9400 tables. > > Toronto and Las Vegas will be interesting to see > what the trend does... > (both of which will be gigantic after > two unattractive sites in a row, I'm guessing > at least 16,000 tables each) > The KC NABC may not have "attracted" many tables, but I found it to be much more "attractive" than, say, Anaheim, using another sense of the word. The Hyatt was fine, the hospitality terrific (no Anaheim hot dogs), the people pleasant, and the playing conditions better than most. And how about that piano player, wasn't he something?! 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 Mar 30 16:17:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U6H1w04382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:17:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2U6Gtt04348 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:16:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:17:27 -0800 Message-ID: <00ed01c0b8e0$fe3d7700$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <027001c0b89b$02282180$b1e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <200103291909430450.01F3B061@mail.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:12:14 -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 From: "Brian Baresch" > I don't know why they don't have more pre-dealt boards; either they don't > have enough board sets, or they don't have enough machines and operators to > generate that many. If predealing is subcontracted out, as I suspect but don't know, not done with ACBL equipment/labor, it is cost that limits the use of pre-dealt boards. The ACBL is in a financial bind right now, and has to cut every corner possible. > > >Even when one does deal manually, one would think that a > >procedure whereby players deal hands which are played at > >tables other than their own might be manageable? Perhaps not? > > Might be, but AFAIK it's not been tried hereabouts. > Has anyone considered that a mandatory cut by opponents would be a solution? L6A says either opponent can require a cut, and these discussions make me wonder if perhaps that would be a good idea. Another problem is with the dealing, even from a randomized pack. Many players deal in such a way that partner can see some of the faces as they are dealt. Or they hold the pack in a way that shows the bottom card. Some count their cards by fanning them in front, often at an angle that permits viewing of the faces by partner. I doubt that such players know what they're doing, but some of their partners might. 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 Mar 30 16:56:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U6toe17910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:55:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from selenium.mcis.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.70]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2U6tgt17860 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:55:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by selenium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:53:50 +0800 Received: from mx16.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.116]) by thorium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:49:00 +0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by mx16.singnet.com.sg (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f2U5mOK12896 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:48:24 +0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U5ZZU19839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:35:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2U5ZSt19813 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:35:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qta2e.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.168.78]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA05735 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:35:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <019701c0b8db$88a90220$4ea8aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <200103281840.KAA12762@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:37:37 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote > > My vote would go for allowing the player to correct to the lowest > legal bid in the same denomination regardless. No-one has ever given me > any convincing argument why this is wrong. there will be UI problems, > but there are anyway. > OK, let me try. More than once I have faced something that is sometimes called two-way DONT: For example, a hand with diamonds and a major bids 2 diamonds over our 1NT. A hand with just diamonds bids 1D first, then calmly changes it to 2 diamonds, sometimes after saying "oh, I did not see the 1NT" (which was announced 11--13, by the way). *This* 2 diamonds bid is natural! That is why it is called two-way DONT. That is blatant, of course, but many ACBL directors allow it when coming from inexperienced players. Some ACBL directors allow all corrections of insufficient bids, even those their partner points out, if the insufficient bidder answers "no" to the question "Did you intent to make an insufficient bid?" and if he also answers "yes" (even after pausing for thought) to the question "Would you like to make it sufficient?" Some directors do not even ask the first question, because obviously, nobody *intends* to make an insufficient bid. Does anybody find this example (as to why insufficient *conventional* bids are penalized more) at all convincing? Part of the problem, I think, was the official ACBL statement when we started using bidding boxes more and more (and even today) was that directors are to be "very liberal" in forgiving possible mechanical errors, without clearly defining what "very liberal" means in this context. I cringe when I hear rules this vague. Also, I tried discussing this a few years ago by phone with the ACBL office, and maybe I was not clear enough about something, but the principal explained to me while discussing this L27B2 case (where the insuffient bid would have been conventional) was an analogy to running a red light in front of a highway patrolman---sure it was illegal, but the patrolman is not required to stop you. I had previously thought that this kind of reasoning was not valid for a bridge director. Oh, and I still don't. My favorite directors all RTFLB and follow it, even when they might not have written the exact same law themselves. Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 30 17:02:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U72Fp20190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:02:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2U728t20149 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:02:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010330070205.XEDQ1913.femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:02:05 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:06:18 -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: <00e301c0b8db$65521280$3b30d2cc@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 >> >> FWIW: >> >> We had a light load of appeals again in KC - only 22- >> (15 from NABCs and 7 from Regional events) >> >> Of course, this was a tiny tournament - 9400 tables. >> >> Toronto and Las Vegas will be interesting to see >> what the trend does... >> (both of which will be gigantic after >> two unattractive sites in a row, I'm guessing >> at least 16,000 tables each) >> >The KC NABC may not have "attracted" many tables, but I found it to be >much more "attractive" than, say, Anaheim, using another sense of the >word. The Hyatt was fine, the hospitality terrific (no Anaheim hot >dogs), the people pleasant, and the playing conditions better than most. >And how about that piano player, wasn't he something?! hmm... which one? :-) I heard more than one.. > >Marv >Marvin L. French, ISPE >San Diego, CA, USA > Yes - your choice of words was much better than mine... Agree with you re: Anaheim I tend to enjoy the tournaments that don't "attract" many tables - they just seem "cozier" to me. Of course, the local tournament hosts (bless them for all their hard work, esp. when they often have a strike against them because of where they are.. geography) often provide extra-special hospitality!! I liked the Hyatt a lot.. Passed my first two major creature comfort tests with flying colors - 1) good showers in the room 2) quiet heating / ac system Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 17:12:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U7Cc723803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:12:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2U7CXt23775 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:12:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA22071 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:16:41 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:05:02 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:12:32 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 30/03/2001 05:09:41 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The Melbourne Age newspaper has an admirable habit of occasionally publishing a box headed *We were wrong*. In it, The Age corrects previously published inadvertant errors of fact. (Unlike some other newspapers, The Age does not deliberately distort facts.) Until now, I have been a supporter of the Marvin French and David Burn school, which strongly advocates the abolition of L12C3. However, *I was wrong*. Last night, I was a member of an AC which had to decide an extremely involuted appeal. If only L12C2 were available, one side or the other would have been unfairly treated. Luckily, the South Pacific Zone has exercised its option to enable operation of L12C3. So, the AC was able to award a score giving both sides a close approximation of *equity*. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 30 19:41:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2U9emo05354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:40:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium (ruthenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2U9egt05350 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:40:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.189.89] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14ivOV-00058e-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:40:35 +0100 Message-ID: <001701c0b8fd$65cdd9c0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Re: I was wrong Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:39:22 +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 Richard wrote: > Until now, I have been a supporter of the Marvin > French and David Burn school, which strongly > advocates the abolition of L12C3. > However, *I was wrong*. You certainly were! > Last night, I was a member of an AC which had > to decide an extremely involuted appeal. If > only L12C2 were available, one side or the > other would have been unfairly treated. Luckily, > the South Pacific Zone has exercised its > option to enable operation of L12C3. So, the > AC was able to award a score giving both > sides a close approximation of *equity*. I have never opposed L12C3 in any shape, manner or form. I think it is a splendid Law, and that those jurisdictions who confine themselves to L12C2 are labouring at a great disadvantage. My belief is that the two Laws may usefully be combined in order to arrive at overall equity - that is: the non-offending side receives a score that reflects its actual equity in a position; the offending side receives a score that reflects the worst thing that could reasonably have happened to it. Others do not agree with this implementation, preferring to give both sides the same "equitable" score (and then impose a fine on the offending side, or not, as the case may be). But that is a minor detail; on the question of whether L12C3 itself is desirable, my answer is and has always been a resounding "Yes". You're probably thinking of Eric Landau. 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 Mar 30 20:01:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UA0xv05379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:00:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2UA0rt05375 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:00:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.17.166]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010330100049.YBUJ290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:00:49 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01c0b900$cb87ff40$a611ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <027001c0b89b$02282180$b1e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <200103291909430450.01F3B061@mail.earthlink.net> <00ed01c0b8e0$fe3d7700$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:04:22 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 7:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat > > From: "Brian Baresch" > > > I don't know why they don't have more pre-dealt boards; either they > don't > > have enough board sets, or they don't have enough machines and > operators to > > generate that many. > > If predealing is subcontracted out, as I suspect but don't know, not > done with ACBL equipment/labor, it is cost that limits the use of > pre-dealt boards. The ACBL is in a financial bind right now, and has to > cut every corner possible. > > > > >Even when one does deal manually, one would think that a > > >procedure whereby players deal hands which are played at > > >tables other than their own might be manageable? Perhaps not? > > > > Might be, but AFAIK it's not been tried hereabouts. > > > Has anyone considered that a mandatory cut by opponents would be a > solution? L6A says either opponent can require a cut, and these > discussions make me wonder if perhaps that would be a good idea. > > Another problem is with the dealing, even from a randomized pack. Many > players deal in such a way that partner can see some of the faces as > they are dealt. Or they hold the pack in a way that shows the bottom > card. Some count their cards by fanning them in front, often at an angle > that permits viewing of the faces by partner. I doubt that such players > know what they're doing, but some of their partners might. > Yes Marvin - in our clubs this is a problem. In about two years I think I have converted 20 people as to their method of counting their hand so that their partner cannot see the faces. Our little area of East Wales (<1000 members) has 80 sets of boards and two dealing machines. All our events now have predealt boards. We can predeal for a 100 table congress for 4 sessions and frequently do some dealing on site where necessary. You will recall that we had a major cheating incident 2 years ago, and we have decided that this is the way foreward.The expense is not prohibitive, and puts about 1UKP per player on the cost of the table money. Hand records are always available. 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 Mar 30 20:09:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UA9OG05399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:09:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2UA9It05395 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:09:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.17.166]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010330100915.YFKM290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:09:15 +0100 Message-ID: <003b01c0b901$f8fb52a0$a611ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:12:15 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong > > The Melbourne Age newspaper has an admirable > habit of occasionally publishing a box headed *We > were wrong*. In it, The Age corrects previously > published inadvertant errors of fact. (Unlike some > other newspapers, The Age does not deliberately > distort facts.) > > Until now, I have been a supporter of the Marvin > French and David Burn school, which strongly > advocates the abolition of L12C3. > > However, *I was wrong*. > > Last night, I was a member of an AC which had > to decide an extremely involuted appeal. If > only L12C2 were available, one side or the > other would have been unfairly treated. Luckily, > the South Pacific Zone has exercised its > option to enable operation of L12C3. So, the > AC was able to award a score giving both > sides a close approximation of *equity*. > As you will be aware, the WBFLC has now given NAs the option of allowing TDs this right. EBU and WBU have adopted this practice. Experienced TDs are in my opinion using it to good advantage, and the best bit is that the players like it. In my experience, it gives rise to fewer appeals. 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 Mar 30 21:14:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UBE6D05498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:14:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2UBE0t05494 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:14:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.189.89] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14iwqq-0006Xh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:13:57 +0100 Message-ID: <006501c0b90a$7071eda0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329081317.00b0f170@127.0.0.1> <02c101c0b884$de1b5160$d400e041@uymfdlvk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329151114.00b081a0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:13:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >The real flaw in Mr. Beck's argument is that nobody really > >riffle-shuffles randomly. When you shuffle, you perform a series of > >small hand and finger movements that combine into a smooth, uniform > >shuffling motion. By habit, you will naturally tend to make those > >small movements in the same sequence every time. I'd be willing to bet > >that most shufflers either retain the original bottom card or exchange > >it almost every time they shuffle. > > I agree most do. It is because I had noticed that most do that I have > made sure I do not, by deliberately alternating. The same effect can be achieved with rather less effort by the time-honoured practice of cutting the deck having shuffled it. The evidence seems to be that the most efficient method of shuffling is five riffles, followed by a single cut. Whereas overhand shuffling will certainly fail to preserve the bottom card, it is a more or less useless way to shuffle, since it keeps clumps of cards together the whole time, leading to much flatter distributions than the statistical norm. 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 Mar 30 23:13:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UDBBQ03881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:11:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2UDB3t03837 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:11:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-59-18.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.59.18]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2UDAwv07008; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:10:58 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003701c0b91a$f17f1660$6054063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001701c0b8fd$65cdd9c0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: I was wrong Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:08:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: 30 March 2001 10:39 Subject: [BLML] Re: I was wrong > > You're probably thinking of Eric Landau. > +=+ And numerous others! Meanwhile, we are having a lot of success with 12C3 at international level, especially with its powers delegated to the Director. Mind you, I am biased having devised the 12C3 concept and then, on behalf of the EBL, carved my way with it through the glittering ranks of the Old Guard. The Sorrento experience was greatly encouraging; the Directors were extremely busy but the Appeal Committee was not. All* the 12C3 decisions were in what I have elsewhere dubbed the 'European' style - i.e. a single score awarded to both sides, with generous weighting for the score (of those included in the weighting) that is most favourable to the NOS. Although I have technical reservations on it, I have to say it works very well and I am succumbing to the thought that this, middle, way is the way to go. It is well known that I think the course DB favours is too much concerned with punishment, retribution, rather than the equity of which the law speaks. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (*Possibly a dozen plus between Directors and AC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 31 00:09:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UE9Bv06464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:09:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2UE94t06460 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:09:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14izaH-000AyR-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:09:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:58:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat References: <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329081317.00b0f170@127.0.0.1> <02c101c0b884$de1b5160$d400e041@uymfdlvk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329151114.00b081a0@127.0.0.1> <006501c0b90a$7071eda0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <006501c0b90a$7071eda0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <006501c0b90a$7071eda0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> >The real flaw in Mr. Beck's argument is that nobody really >> >riffle-shuffles randomly. When you shuffle, you perform a series of >> >small hand and finger movements that combine into a smooth, uniform >> >shuffling motion. By habit, you will naturally tend to make those >> >small movements in the same sequence every time. I'd be willing to >bet >> >that most shufflers either retain the original bottom card or >exchange >> >it almost every time they shuffle. >> >> I agree most do. It is because I had noticed that most do that I >have >> made sure I do not, by deliberately alternating. > >The same effect can be achieved with rather less effort by the >time-honoured practice of cutting the deck having shuffled it. The >evidence seems to be that the most efficient method of shuffling is five >riffles, followed by a single cut. Whereas overhand shuffling will >certainly fail to preserve the bottom card, it is a more or less useless >way to shuffle, since it keeps clumps of cards together the whole time, >leading to much flatter distributions than the statistical norm. > >David Burn >London, England It is a completely routine overhand shuffle for me to hold at least two cards in known positions in the deck. The riffle is tougher as it is obvious if I'm holding the top and bottom cards. Card mechanics will use the overhand shuffle for preference if they're trying to control the position of one or two cards. 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 Sat Mar 31 00:12:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UECWX06485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:12:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2UECQt06480 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:12:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14izdW-000Bhf-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:12:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:02:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong References: <003b01c0b901$f8fb52a0$a611ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <003b01c0b901$f8fb52a0$a611ff3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <003b01c0b901$f8fb52a0$a611ff3e@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes snip >> >> Until now, I have been a supporter of the Marvin >> French and David Burn school, which strongly >> advocates the abolition of L12C3. >> >> However, *I was wrong*. >> snip >> >As you will be aware, the WBFLC has now given NAs the option of allowing >TDs this right. >EBU and WBU have adopted this practice. >Experienced TDs are in my opinion using it to good advantage, and the >best bit is that the players like it. >In my experience, it gives rise to fewer appeals. >Anne I've taken to doing it in club games too. It goes down well. the major problem is that scoring software makes a pig's ear out of it and it takes a while to do all the computations. -- 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 Mar 31 00:22:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UEMaj06516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:22:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2UEMUt06512 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:22:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14iznH-000EDh-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:22:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:11:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: I was wrong References: <001701c0b8fd$65cdd9c0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001701c0b8fd$65cdd9c0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001701c0b8fd$65cdd9c0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Richard wrote: > >> Until now, I have been a supporter of the Marvin >> French and David Burn school, which strongly >> advocates the abolition of L12C3. > >> However, *I was wrong*. > >You certainly were! > >> Last night, I was a member of an AC which had >> to decide an extremely involuted appeal. If >> only L12C2 were available, one side or the >> other would have been unfairly treated. Luckily, >> the South Pacific Zone has exercised its >> option to enable operation of L12C3. So, the >> AC was able to award a score giving both >> sides a close approximation of *equity*. > >I have never opposed L12C3 in any shape, manner or form. I think it is a >splendid Law, and that those jurisdictions who confine themselves to >L12C2 are labouring at a great disadvantage. My belief is that the two >Laws may usefully be combined in order to arrive at overall equity - >that is: the non-offending side receives a score that reflects its >actual equity in a position; the offending side receives a score that >reflects the worst thing that could reasonably have happened to it. >Others do not agree with this implementation, preferring to give both >sides the same "equitable" score (and then impose a fine on the >offending side, or not, as the case may be). David and I are in complete disagreement over the actual implementation - he being a "shoot everyone" freak, and I a "find an equitable score" freak. I think there is justification for both routes, but David's route has an undesirable side effect. The general principle of the law is that the highest score than can be achieved on a board is 120% when both sides get A+ and 80% when both sides get A-. The "shoot everyone" approach can easily produce 40% on a board. This, in the context of the total event, severely penalises the players at that table for no particularly good reason, when the law itself is geared to restoring equity. As much for this reason as any other I'm for the "find an equitable score" (and issue a PP) route as this way the score on the board is 100% (90%) > But that is a minor detail; >on the question of whether L12C3 itself is desirable, my answer is and >has always been a resounding "Yes". and he uses it a lot and very well at AC. 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 Sat Mar 31 00:55:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UEt5p06578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:55:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2UEsxt06574 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:54:59 +1000 (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 f2UEspk96521 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:54:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010330084833.00ab4d70@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, 30 Mar 2001 09:55:44 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <9IE+zSBMW2w6Ew39@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329083525.00ab4b90@127.0.0.1> <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be> <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329083525.00ab4b90@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:40 AM 3/29/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >It feels wrong for the law to burden a player with the obligation to > >avoid taking advantage of UI which it itself creates. > > Perhaps it is wrong. In my view rulings from TDs are AI to all >players. > > It is not really relevant, of course. The insufficient bid is UI, so >it does not matter whether pd is told whether it was artificial or not. By the same logic, there's no reason for it to be relevant to the ruling in the first place, which was my point; the TD should not have to base his ruling on a finding of whether the insufficient bid was conventional, which is meaningless unless we go straight to intent. I suspect that L27B1 is one of those that has become confusingly worded as a result of changing a law without making corresponding changes for consistency elsewhere. In particular, L27B1(a) says, "Law 16C2 does not apply..., but see (b) following." Well, as I read TFLB, if L16C2 did apply, it would say that the insufficient bid was subject to L16A, which is exactly what L27B1(b) says. The applicability of both L27B1(b) and L27B2 to "conventional" insufficient bids appears to be two very different remedies for the same problem, leaving us with both an automatic penalty and an equity-based adjustment for the same offense, which suggests (by analogy to similar situations in the past) that perhaps the lawmakers intended to substitute an equity-based approach for the automatic penalty but forgot to remove the latter. I submit this law as a candidate for review in 2007. My personal view is that both the parenthetical in L27B1(a) and the first clause of the first sentence in L27B2 (through "conventional or") should be dropped, leaving us with a clear direction to deal with problems caused by potentially conventional insufficient bids or corrections via L16. If nothing else, such an approach would solve the gross inequity others have pointed out of applying L27B2 to auctions like 2NT-P-2D/3D when it is obvious(*) to everyone at the table that responder wants to transfer [(*) obvious because there would be no possible gain while it would be very likely to cause a disaster for responder to show hearts with partner free to act when he didn't have them]. 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 Mar 31 01:19:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UFJHA08618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:19:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2UFJ5t08614 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:19:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-10-103.inter.net.il [213.8.10.103]) by heimdall.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ANH85224; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:17:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3AC49739.17554717@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:24:57 +0300 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 - March 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 30th 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 third time we decided to add our lovely Human's nicknames ! Please SEND ME YOUR NICKNAMES if have any.... """""""""""""""""""""" 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 Sat Mar 31 01:24:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UFO9n08635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:24:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f2UFO3t08631 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:24:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2UFNxk98798 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:23:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010330100214.00b195e0@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, 30 Mar 2001 10:24:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329074535.00b0c830@127.0.0.1> <3AC2217D.483CB873@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329074535.00b0c830@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:43 AM 3/29/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >This appears to contradict what seems to be a general view on BLML, > >that L27B2 was revised to reduce problems with UI after an insufficient > >bid. > > To be honest, I have never heard this view expressed before, and I do >not think I agree with it. Perhaps I have been reading something into the discussion that wasn't there. But it's hard to find any other rationale for the existence of L27B2. If it were simply there to penalize offenses against the bridge gods (i.e. "procedure") there would be no reason not to have the same penalty when the conditions for applying L27B1 are met. > > If the issue is UI, and if there are multiple possible "meanings" > >for the insufficient bid depending on what the bidder thought the > >actual auction was, and if any of those meanings could lead to applying > >L27B1 instead of L27B2, then it shouldn't matter what the bidder was > >thinking of (if, indeed, he himself knows), because his partner doesn't > >know. > > > >I'd argue that we don't need L27B2 for this purpose at all; L27B1(b) is > >sufficient to deal with UI from insufficient bids. But if we retain it > >in future versions of TFLB, I'd argue strongly for its applicability > >being made dependent on the conventionality of only the substituted > >bid. Trying to devine the "meaning" of an insufficient bid (which is > >meaningingless in most partnerships; indeed, for an insufficient bid to > >have a "meaning" in the normal sense of the word is illegal in the > >ACBL) sounds like more powerful mind-reading than the sort we go out of > >our way to avoid in other parts of the law. > > I agree with this, but in fact would go further and allow correction >always. As would I (and I have said so elsewhere), but half a loaf is better than none. I have no problem with applying laws that I would like to see changed, but I do have a problem making rulings that depend on findings that are meaningless, and I believe that finding an insufficient bid to be conventional is meaningless (outside of the context of blatant cheating; i.e. that an insufficient bid can only be conventional if it is made intentionally, in which case we have a hanging offense that has nothing to do with the conventionality of the bid). 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 Mar 31 02:31:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UGVKf20815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 02:31:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f2UGVEt20779 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 02:31:14 +1000 (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 f2UGV9k04131 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:31:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010330105038.00b0d150@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, 30 Mar 2001 11:32:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010329145705.007e4c40@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010329151114.00b081a0@127.0.0.1> <02c101c0b884$de1b5160$d400e041@uymfdlvk> <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <27.1302ee7f.27f3692a@aol.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010329081317.00b0f170@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:57 PM 3/29/01, Grant wrote: >At 03:31 PM 3/29/2001 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > > >The real flaw in Mr. Beck's argument is that nobody really > >riffle-shuffles randomly. When you shuffle, you perform a series of > >small hand and finger movements that combine into a smooth, uniform > >shuffling motion. By habit, you will naturally tend to make those > >small movements in the same sequence every time. I'd be willing to bet > >that most shufflers either retain the original bottom card or exchange > >it almost every time they shuffle. > > I'm not sure this is true--I know for a fact that I, myself, >sometimes do and sometimes don't change the bottom card when I >riffle. I >have gotten into the habit of deliberately performing a final overhand >shuffle after I am done riffling, making sure that the bottom card is >changed, just in case. > What is most damaging in Beck's testimony is the claim that >Blubaugh _looked at the cards_ and then performed a series of shuffles >with an ace at the bottom of the deck. There is no reason for anyone >to ever >look at the faces of the cards during a shuffle, and to look at the >faces of >the cards _and_ have an ace at the bottom _and_ have that ace stay there >through a series of riffles is, in combination, extremely damning. > I, too, have never met Blubaugh, have never heard of Beck, > and have >never seen the tape. I am sure the ACBL doesn't want to comment >extensively >on the case when facing a lawsuit, but I wish I didn't have to hear the >details third-hand from writers in KC and Dallas that aren't bridge >experts-- >I hadn't even heard about the case until someone forwarded the KC article >to me for reasons that didn't even have anything to do with bridge! [It's >a long story.] Having made the point that the odds on retaining the bottom card through a series of random riffle-shuffles are far less than those given by (or at least attributed to) Mr. Beck, I felt compelled to point out that I believed the theoretical odds to be irrelevant in practice anyhow, because a perfectly well-intentioned player shuffling normally does not shuffle randomly, and might well do this. But a perfectly well-intentioned player shuffling normally does not (a) look at the bottom card at any time during the shuffle, (b) fail to cut (or, as Grant does, overhand-shuffle) the cards after the last riffle (if only because we may have carelessly let an opponent see the bottom card), or (c) deal the bottom card from the shuffled pack to his partner. If indeed Mr. Blubaugh was doing all three of these consistently, I can easily see why that would be viewed as damning evidence. In fairness to Mr. Beck, the emphasis in the article on the retention of the bottom card during the shuffle may have been the author's doing, not his. Two personal notes: (1) Some decades ago I was a fairly skilled card manipulator. Practicing those motions eliminated much of my natural right-handed bias in handling the cards, so I can claim to shuffle more randomly than most folks, but I'm nevertheless a very long way from perfect. (2) I reported this discussion to my wife last night, and she rather surprised me by saying that she believes that her shuffling motion is very likely to leave the bottom card unchanged through a series of shuffles, that she is aware of this, and she has, for precisely that reason, carefully cultivated the habit of making sure she always cuts the cards after she shuffles them. What surprised me wasn't that her shuffle was so highly biased, but that she was consciously aware of it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 31 03:08:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UH7k103339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:07:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2UH7ct03297 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:07:39 +1000 (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 f2UH7Yn85926 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010330113737.00b11ad0@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, 30 Mar 2001 12:08:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Shuffling Probabilities -- was To Catch A Cheat In-Reply-To: <003601c0b894$359fa760$8cf0f1c3@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 04:07 PM 3/29/01, Jac wrote: >John Nichols wrote: > >When a deck is shuffled a single time the probability > >that the card that was on the bottom remains > >on the bottom is 50% (1/2). The deck is divided into > >two halfs, each with a bottom card. > >The bottom card of one of the two halfs > >becomes the new bottom card of the deck. > >In an honest shuffle the probability is 50% that > >the bottom card from a given stack becomes the > >bottom card of the deck. > >That would hold for a riffle-shuffle. I always use a "proper >shufffle". I am sorry I do not know the proper English expression for >this procedure - I mean that I take all of the deck in one hand, >transfer some of the top cards to my other hand, place the remaining >stack on top of the new stack, holding the combined cards temporarily >with both hands, and separate some more top cards to the top of the >new stack, and repeat this transfer until all cards have been >transferred to my other hand. Thus, I have completed one shuffle; of >course, I would repeat this shuffle-procedure several times (seven or >so). It's called an "overhand shuffle". >If executed honestly, the probability that the bottom card remains >bottom after one round of shuffling this way is ZERO. That is why I >prefer this way of shuffling. >However, an expert at it could create the impression that the deck is >being shuffled this way whereas in reality he leaves the order of the >cards undisturbed .... Trust me; an expert card manipulator can do this easily using either kind of shuffle. The standard fake riffle shuffle actually does leave the order of the cards unchanged throughout; the standard fake overhand shuffle changes the order on the odd shuffles then restores the original order on the even ones. Personally, I find the former easier to perform, not that I can perform it smoothly enough to fool anybody who's actually watching me closely (although I've seen many experts who can, at least if the watcher, no matter how intently he watches, isn't aware of how it's done -- beware of the dealer who cuts the deck after every riffle!), but neither is the least bit easy. That said, surreptitiously retaining the bottom (or top) card when one doesn't care about the order of the other 51 is trivial using either kind of shuffle. FWIW, most card players who aren't card manipulators believe (correctly) that riffling is preferable to shuffling overhand because it does a better job of mixing the cards up, especially in relatively unskilled hands. 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 Mar 31 03:23:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UHNGo08723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:23:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f94.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2UHNAt08689 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:23:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:23:02 -0800 Received: from 172.171.206.81 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:23:02 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.171.206.81] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:23:02 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2001 17:23:02.0898 (UTC) FILETIME=[13482520:01C0B93E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Anne Jones" >Our little area of East Wales (<1000 members) has 80 sets of boards and >two dealing machines. All our events now have predealt boards. We can >predeal for a 100 table congress for 4 sessions and frequently do some >dealing on site where necessary. You will recall that we had a major >cheating incident 2 years ago, and we have decided that this is the way >foreward.The expense is not prohibitive, and puts about 1UKP per player >on the cost of the table money. Hand records are always available. 1UK Pound or 1UK Pence? $1.50 (approx 1pound) per player is probably a prohibitive cost to the ACBL. When sectional tournaments cost anywhere from $5 to $9 a session (I'm certain it varies further by region), an extra $1.50 is an increase people will notice and probably not like. -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 Mar 31 03:44:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UHiGd15863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:44:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2UHi8t15825 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:44:09 +1000 (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 f2UHf5m04105 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:41:05 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00e301c0b8db$65521280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <00e301c0b8db$65521280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:35:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marv wrote: >The KC NABC may not have "attracted" many tables, but I found it to be >much more "attractive" than, say, Anaheim, using another sense of the >word. The Hyatt was fine, the hospitality terrific (no Anaheim hot >dogs), the people pleasant, and the playing conditions better than most. >And how about that piano player, wasn't he something?! Friend of mine, who is an absolute novice - and who quit playing for about six months last year because she didn't want to put up with as^H^Hcertain people, went to KC. Said she had a ball. People were friendly, the place was nice, etc., etc. So it *can* be done. :-) 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/AwUBOsTF5L2UW3au93vOEQK8wwCgkEFeRXc+9jj8cFiraVvywWoySRsAnidp Qfmg1XYGgJDs5V5aqLEIeuNI =wPfL -----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 Mar 31 04:32:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UIWdI27154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 04:32:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2UIWWt27150 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 04:32:33 +1000 (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 f2UIWSc02462 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:32:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010330130946.00b1a1d0@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, 30 Mar 2001 13:33:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:23 PM 3/29/01, Todd wrote: > Is equity only altered by (unqualified, but presumably only legal) previous play or also the play at >the infraction, play at a subsequent infraction, or (especially in the case of two revokes in the same >suit) play at a previous infraction? Equity always takes play into account and may be altered by it. The issue being debated is whether when a play incurs a penalty, equity may be altered only by the play itself, or by the penalty as well. Specifically, do we determine equity for a second infraction as we would if the original infraction did not carry an automatic penalty (but rather gave recourse to the NOS solely by means of an equity-based adjustment), or do we include the automatic penalty in the equity position for the second 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 Mar 31 05:51:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UJpEf07034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 05:51:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2UJp6t06999 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 05:51:07 +1000 (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 LAA28124; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:51:01 -0800 Message-Id: <200103301951.LAA28124@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:33:22 EST." <4.3.2.7.1.20010330130946.00b1a1d0@127.0.0.1> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:51:01 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > Equity always takes play into account and may be altered by it. The > issue being debated is whether when a play incurs a penalty, equity may > be altered only by the play itself, or by the penalty as > well. Specifically, do we determine equity for a second infraction as > we would if the original infraction did not carry an automatic penalty > (but rather gave recourse to the NOS solely by means of an equity-based > adjustment), or do we include the automatic penalty in the equity > position for the second infraction? I have a couple thoughts regarding this issue: (1) The issue makes sense only when the first infraction is a revoke. The reason is that there is never a "penalty" for other infractions, just a possible score adjustment. If the first infraction is not a revoke, and if there's damage, then we adjust by determining the most favorable/most likely score that was going to happen at the instant before the first infraction (or a weighted average of scores). Thus, all actual play after the first infraction becomes irrelevant, including the second infraction. (2) Consider this example: AQT53 52 JT98 52 64 2 Q875 JT96 K62 Q753 AQ73 JT96 KJ987 AK4 A4 K84 South plays 4S at matchpoints. West gets off to the DK lead. South wins, and cashes the king of trumps, East discarding a club. South leads another trump; when it's East's turn to play, he finds the trump he should have played on the previous round, and he plays it with an embarrassed look on his face. Now South plays another diamond, of course expecting West to win, but instead East wins, and now goes into the tank trying to guess which rounded suit to lead. West loses patience and says, "Lead a club!" So East leads a club, holding declarer to 10 tricks. Declarer gets awarded an 11th trick because of the revoke, but does he get a 12th trick from the blatant UI infraction? "No", says the director. "The penalty for the first infraction, the revoke, is not considered part of declarer's equity. Since declarer was never going to make more than 11 tricks without the revoke, the UI caused no damage, and therefore there's no adjustment." So East/West get a free use of UI here. Is this right? I don't think so. Because of this, I think the "two infraction" problem should really only be an issue when both infractions are revokes. -- 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 Mar 31 06:36:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UKahw16704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 06:36:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2UKaat16699 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 06:36:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA06371 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:36:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA04112 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:36:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:36:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200103302036.PAA04112@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > So East/West get a free use of UI here. Is this right? > > I don't think so. Because of this, I think the "two infraction" > problem should really only be an issue when both infractions are > revokes. Nice example. Notice there's no problem if you consider equity to include the revoke penalty. Absent the UI, declarer was going to score either 11 or 12 tricks, depending on East's guess. After West made the UI available, but before East committed the infraction of using it, declarer was due 12 tricks (heart lead, lose one club, get one penalty trick back at the end). This is the score I claim should be assigned. It's a straight application of L12C2, no L64C involved! Just consider what would have been the result without the infraction, as the CoP advises. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 31 07:44:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2ULhLX19370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:43:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2ULhCt19360 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:43:13 +1000 (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 f2ULh8k24082 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:43:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010330155833.00b0cea0@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, 30 Mar 2001 16:44:02 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <019701c0b8db$88a90220$4ea8aec7@ix.netcom.com> References: <200103281840.KAA12762@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:37 AM 3/30/01, Jerry wrote: >David Stevenson wrote > > > My vote would go for allowing the player to correct to the lowest > > legal bid in the same denomination regardless. No-one has ever > given me > > any convincing argument why this is wrong. there will be UI problems, > > but there are anyway. > >OK, let me try. More than once I have faced something that is sometimes >called two-way DONT: For example, a hand with diamonds and a major bids 2 >diamonds over our 1NT. A hand with just diamonds bids 1D first, then >calmly >changes it to 2 diamonds, sometimes after saying "oh, I did not see >the 1NT" >(which was announced 11--13, by the way). *This* 2 diamonds bid is >natural! >That is why it is called two-way DONT. But if L27B2 didn't exist, we would, as David has suggested, rule in such cases under L27B1, which would place an obligation on their partner to avoid any action demonstrably suggested by the knowledge that they don't have a two-suiter, with redress available to the NOS via the usual equity-based adjustment procedure of L16A. This is what happens now when the "conventionality" of the bids isn't an issue. We normally do not penalize transmission of UI, even in blatant cases; we penalize the use of UI by the transmitter's partner. Here, though, some of us believe, for some reason, that cases such as the above should be treated as apparent exceptions, as the transmitted UI is blatant enough to merit barring partner from bidding altogether rather than merely from choosing a suggested LA. David and others believe we should take a consistent approach to dealing with UI regardless of whether the UI comes from an illegal natural call or an illegal conventional one. >That is blatant, of course, but many ACBL directors allow it when coming >from inexperienced players. Some ACBL directors allow all corrections of >insufficient bids, even those their partner points out, if the >insufficient >bidder answers "no" to the question "Did you intent to make an >insufficient >bid?" and if he also answers "yes" (even after pausing for thought) to the >question "Would you like to make it sufficient?" Some directors do not >even >ask the first question, because obviously, nobody *intends* to make an >insufficient bid. > >Does anybody find this example (as to why insufficient *conventional* bids >are penalized more) at all convincing? No. For one thing, they are not "penalized more"; rather, they are "penalized" differently, using different principles and procedures, notwithstanding that most of the time the outcome will leave the OS worse off. But that aside, why should an illegal bid which creates any infraction be penalized more harshly when conventional than when natural? >Part of the problem, I think, was the official ACBL statement when we >started using bidding boxes more and more (and even today) was that >directors are to be "very liberal" in forgiving possible mechanical >errors, >without clearly defining what "very liberal" means in this context. I >cringe >when I hear rules this vague. The ACBL statement is, in my experience, universally interpreted by TDs to pertain to "forgiving" possible mechanical errors by "very liberally" applying L25A. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it doesn't affect the problem. The problem here is how L27B should operate; when L25A is applied (rightly or wrongly), L27B doesn't "operate" at all. My (and David's, if I'm reading him correctly) bottom line: An insufficient bid corrected to the the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination is a specific infraction. As such, we may want to deal with it via automatic penalties, or equity adjustments, or a combination of the two. We should not, however, want to deal with in one way when it is natural and in a fundamentally different way when it is conventional. 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 Mar 31 08:08:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UM7tX20377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:07:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2UM7mt20368 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:07:48 +1000 (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 f2UM7ik26143 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:07:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010330165412.00b10b70@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, 30 Mar 2001 17:08:38 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC In-Reply-To: References: <00e301c0b8db$65521280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:06 AM 3/30/01, ltrent wrote: > >> We had a light load of appeals again in KC - only 22- > >> (15 from NABCs and 7 from Regional events) > >> > >> Of course, this was a tiny tournament - 9400 tables. > >> > >> Toronto and Las Vegas will be interesting to see > >> what the trend does... > >> (both of which will be gigantic after > >> two unattractive sites in a row, I'm guessing > >> at least 16,000 tables each) > >> > >The KC NABC may not have "attracted" many tables, but I found it to be > >much more "attractive" than, say, Anaheim, using another sense of the > >word. The Hyatt was fine, the hospitality terrific (no Anaheim hot > >dogs), the people pleasant, and the playing conditions better than most. > >And how about that piano player, wasn't he something?! > >hmm... which one? :-) >I heard more than one.. > > >Marv > >Yes - your choice of words was much better than mine... > >Agree with you re: Anaheim > >I tend to enjoy the tournaments that don't "attract" many tables - they >just seem "cozier" to me. Of course, the local tournament hosts (bless >them for all their hard work, esp. when they often have a strike against >them because of where they are.. geography) often provide extra-special >hospitality!! > >I liked the Hyatt a lot.. > >Passed my first two major creature comfort tests with flying colors - > >1) good showers in the room >2) quiet heating / ac system Is it not obvious that what attracts the folks who will spend their entire time at an NABC in their hotel room, the tournament venue and a few nearby restaurants is very different from what attracts folks who will spend some of their time in bridge-related activities and the rest of their time in vacation- or tourist-like pursuits? And is it not equally obvious, from the attendance figures if not from just plain common sense, that the choice of venue makes a lot more of a difference to the latter than to the former? How then can the ACBL cry poverty, admit that NABCs are a major source of revenue, and yet continue to schedule NABCs in places like Miami in the summer or Winnepeg in the winter? Could it be that the decision-makers are more concerned with what attracts them personally than with what attracts the bulk of their membership? Would the ACBL feel the need to revoke my life membership as too financially burdensome to acknowledge if they held an NABC in Toronto or Las Vegas every year? 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 Mar 31 08:20:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UMKht20898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:20:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com ([206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2UMKat20889 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:20:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11774 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:19:27 -0900 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:19:10 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010330105038.00b0d150@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Eric Landau wrote: > (2) I reported this discussion to my wife last night, and she rather > surprised me by saying that she believes that her shuffling motion is > very likely to leave the bottom card unchanged through a series of > shuffles, that she is aware of this, and she has, for precisely that > reason, carefully cultivated the habit of making sure she always cuts > the cards after she shuffles them. What surprised me wasn't that her > shuffle was so highly biased, but that she was consciously aware of it. I made two similar discoveries about myself some time ago. One, when I was about ten years old, playing pinochle with my mother, father, and aunt... that it was awfully easy to make sure an ace was on the bottom of the deck and keep it there... and then decide whether to stop after three, or four, or five shuffles based on whether the card immediately above the ace was something "nice" (a second ace, or a card of the same suit as the bottom ace suitable for making a family) - and since the cards are dealt out three-at-a-time, give both of these to myself. This could have been easily foiled, obviously, by a cut; but noone seemed to bother with cutting. It is rather hard NOT to show SOMEONE the bottom card of the pack after each riffle-shuffle in the process of squaring up and re-dividing it in preparation for the next shuffle. Two, a couple years later, when I was playing solitaire all the time, I noticed that my shuffles quite unconsciously left the bottom card unchanged 80 to 90 % of the time, much as your wife's do. Unlike her, the conscious change I made was to change which hand I used to cut before each riffle, ensuring the bottom card almost NEVER stays on the bottom when I shuffle now. I try hard not to let partner see any of the cards while I shuffle now; which means I frequently DO see cards in my own shuffles - but because of making sure the bottom cards move up each time, I don't know where these will wind up after the deal. Cutting is a good idea. I'll try to remember to offer the pack to RHO in all the team games in Victoria next week. As for predealt hands and dealing machines... I've never so much as seen a dealing machine, though I don't play in the uppermost levels (yet! Mr Optimist says), nor have I ever used predealt hands in any team game except a BAM. As for the original article and Mr. Beck, I must say I found it hard to see much in the article that had anything to do with bridge at all. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 31 08:37:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UMb7W21546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:37:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2UMaxt21537 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:37:00 +1000 (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 OAA31448; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:36:55 -0800 Message-Id: <200103302236.OAA31448@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:44:02 EST." <4.3.2.7.1.20010330155833.00b0cea0@127.0.0.1> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:36:51 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > No. For one thing, they are not "penalized more"; rather, they are > "penalized" differently, using different principles and procedures, > notwithstanding that most of the time the outcome will leave the OS > worse off. But that aside, why should an illegal bid which creates any > infraction be penalized more harshly when conventional than when natural? Could practical convenience for the director be part of the reason? Whenever someone suggests using adjusted scores to restore equity after a revoke, John Probst and others strongly object, on the grounds that since revokes occur fairly frequently, this rule would give them more work than they can handle. The easily applied rules for assigning a revoke penalty, along with L64C to make sure equity is restored in rare cases, seems like a workable compromise. Perhaps it's the same with insufficient bids. Insufficient bids, like revokes, are mechanical errors that can perhaps be expected to occur more frequently than, say, hesitation problems. Insufficient bids that involve conventions (either the least sufficient bid or the bid the offender might have been trying to make) almost always cause more UI problems than those that don't (the 2NT - 2D/3D case being one exception), so simply barring offender's partner in such cases might have been a compromise to keep from requiring the director to go through the hassle of determining equity, damage, favorable and likely results, etc., in most cases. What do John and others think? Would treating conventional insufficient bids as UI cases lead to too much more work? Or do you think it wouldn't be nearly as bad as determining equity on every revoke? I'm curious. -- 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 Mar 31 09:23:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UNMY723248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 09:22:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from backup.san.rr.com (backup.san.rr.com [24.25.193.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2UNMRt23238 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 09:22:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by backup.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:22:34 -0800 Message-ID: <003e01c0b970$41e6e2e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003b01c0b901$f8fb52a0$a611ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:19:08 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject > >> > >> Until now, I have been a supporter of the Marvin > >> French and David Burn school, which strongly > >> advocates the abolition of L12C3. > >> > >> However, *I was wrong*. > >> > snip > >> > >As you will be aware, the WBFLC has now given NAs the option of allowing > >TDs this right. > >EBU and WBU have adopted this practice. > >Experienced TDs are in my opinion using it to good advantage, and the > >best bit is that the players like it. > >In my experience, it gives rise to fewer appeals. > >Anne > > I've taken to doing it in club games too. It goes down well. the major > problem is that scoring software makes a pig's ear out of it and it > takes a while to do all the computations. And a very smart guy like you, who can not only do the computations but derive the probabilities of possible outcomes. I shudder to think what California TDs would make of L12C3, even if I thought it worthwhile, which I don't. I did at first, by the way. Of course players like it. The offenders get off easier than with L12C2, and the non-offenders are relieved that they get at least some redress. What's not to like? If player desires are the criterion, might as well go back to the once-popular California score adjustments: Ave+ for the non-offenders, table result for the offenders. Everyone is happy. The logical next step is to do the same for revokes, calculating "What might have happened" if the revoke had not been established. And the same for LOOTs, BOOTs, and every other infraction. Why stop at L12? Surely players making mechanical errors deserve as much sympathetic treatment as those who give out UI and MI. 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 Mar 31 09:38:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2UNcFr23827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 09:38:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from backup.san.rr.com (backup.san.rr.com [24.25.193.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2UNc4t23817 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 09:38:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by backup.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:38:12 -0800 Message-ID: <007501c0b972$70ffda80$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001701c0b8fd$65cdd9c0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: I was wrong Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:37:48 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" writes: > David Burn writes > >Richard wrote: > > > >> Until now, I have been a supporter of the Marvin > >> French and David Burn school, which strongly > >> advocates the abolition of L12C3. > > > >> However, *I was wrong*. > > > >You certainly were! > > > >> Last night, I was a member of an AC which had > >> to decide an extremely involuted appeal. If > >> only L12C2 were available, one side or the > >> other would have been unfairly treated. Luckily, > >> the South Pacific Zone has exercised its > >> option to enable operation of L12C3. So, the > >> AC was able to award a score giving both > >> sides a close approximation of *equity*. > > > >I have never opposed L12C3 in any shape, manner or form. I think it is a > >splendid Law, and that those jurisdictions who confine themselves to > >L12C2 are labouring at a great disadvantage. My belief is that the two > >Laws may usefully be combined in order to arrive at overall equity - > >that is: the non-offending side receives a score that reflects its > >actual equity in a position; the offending side receives a score that > >reflects the worst thing that could reasonably have happened to it. > >Others do not agree with this implementation, preferring to give both > >sides the same "equitable" score (and then impose a fine on the > >offending side, or not, as the case may be). > > David and I are in complete disagreement over the actual implementation > - he being a "shoot everyone" freak, and I a "find an equitable score" > freak. I think there is justification for both routes, but David's > route has an undesirable side effect. > And there is one big objection to L12C3: The same irregularity will have much different consequences, depending on who is doing the adjusting. We need Laws whose effects are repeatable. Insofar as is possible, identical infractions should result in identical score adjustments, as revokes currently do. 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 Mar 31 10:46:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2V0k4b26134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 10:46:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2V0jvt26128 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 10:45:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.150]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010331004553.JLZL283.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:45:53 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c0b97c$72a9fc80$be8c69d5@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:49:30 +0100 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: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat > >From: "Anne Jones" > >Our little area of East Wales (<1000 members) has 80 sets of boards and > >two dealing machines. All our events now have predealt boards. We can > >predeal for a 100 table congress for 4 sessions and frequently do some > >dealing on site where necessary. You will recall that we had a major > >cheating incident 2 years ago, and we have decided that this is the way > >foreward.The expense is not prohibitive, and puts about 1UKP per player > >on the cost of the table money. Hand records are always available. > > 1UK Pound or 1UK Pence? $1.50 (approx 1pound) per player is probably a > prohibitive cost to the ACBL. When sectional tournaments cost anywhere from > $5 to $9 a session (I'm certain it varies further by region), an extra $1.50 > is an increase people will notice and probably not like. > Yes I understand. The extra here is only about 10% as players expect to pay more for their bridge.Room hire is expensive, as are equipment overheads, but the TDs come cheap :-). Anne > -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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 31 12:22:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2V2KdE29058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:20:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2V2KSt29050 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:20:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14jB03-0005Rg-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:20:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:08:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010330155833.00b0cea0@127.0.0.1> <200103302236.OAA31448@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200103302236.OAA31448@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200103302236.OAA31448@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Eric Landau wrote: > >> No. For one thing, they are not "penalized more"; rather, they are >> "penalized" differently, using different principles and procedures, >> notwithstanding that most of the time the outcome will leave the OS >> worse off. But that aside, why should an illegal bid which creates any >> infraction be penalized more harshly when conventional than when natural? > >Could practical convenience for the director be part of the reason? >Whenever someone suggests using adjusted scores to restore equity >after a revoke, John Probst and others strongly object, on the grounds >that since revokes occur fairly frequently, this rule would give them >more work than they can handle. The easily applied rules for >assigning a revoke penalty, along with L64C to make sure equity is >restored in rare cases, seems like a workable compromise. > >Perhaps it's the same with insufficient bids. Insufficient bids, like >revokes, are mechanical errors that can perhaps be expected to occur >more frequently than, say, hesitation problems. Insufficient bids >that involve conventions (either the least sufficient bid or the bid >the offender might have been trying to make) almost always cause more >UI problems than those that don't (the 2NT - 2D/3D case being one >exception), so simply barring offender's partner in such cases might >have been a compromise to keep from requiring the director to go >through the hassle of determining equity, damage, favorable and likely >results, etc., in most cases. > >What do John and others think? Would treating conventional >insufficient bids as UI cases lead to too much more work? I get one conventional undercall per 30 revokes. (guessed) nonetheless I prefer to have a penalty system rather than an equity system for handling all "book" errors. I feel this way because one can just give the ruling. "This is the Law - sorry but that's how it is". In the grand scheme of things it is sufficiently low frequency not to randomise a competition significantly and it's much less arduous on both the players *and* the TD's. I'm not even suggesting this to get an easy life - on the contrary a hard judgEment problem makes my day. I prefer that the players know that they get shot for revokes, lethal injection for LOOTs and guillotined for conventional undercalls. At least we *all* know where we stand. So now you know what I think - but I'm just an egg :)) (usual prize for spotting this one) > Or do you >think it wouldn't be nearly as bad as determining equity on every >revoke? I'm curious. > > -- Adam > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |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 Mar 31 12:24:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2V2OZf29188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:24:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f2V2OSt29182 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:24:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14jB3x-0005dj-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:24:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:12:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010330130946.00b1a1d0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010330130946.00b1a1d0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <4.3.2.7.1.20010330130946.00b1a1d0@127.0.0.1>, Eric Landau writes >At 06:23 PM 3/29/01, Todd wrote: > >> Is equity only altered by (unqualified, but presumably only >legal) previous play or also the play at >the infraction, play at a >subsequent infraction, or (especially in the case of two revokes in the >same >suit) play at a previous infraction? > >Equity always takes play into account and may be altered by it. The >issue being debated is whether when a play incurs a penalty, equity may >be altered only by the play itself, or by the penalty as >well. Specifically, do we determine equity for a second infraction as >we would if the original infraction did not carry an automatic penalty >(but rather gave recourse to the NOS solely by means of an equity-based >adjustment), or do we include the automatic penalty in the equity >position for the second infraction? > I clearly think we should not. The original infraction is sufficient penalty and where the Laws provide for continued infraction (as in revoking twice in the same suit), then we should accept this is *why* these Laws were written. >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |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 Mar 31 12:40:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2V2e5r29631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:40:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2V2dvt29623 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:39:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14jBIv-0009dh-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 02:39:53 +0000 Message-ID: <9LmbbqMmCUx6Ewe$@asimere.com> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:27:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: I was wrong References: <001701c0b8fd$65cdd9c0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> <007501c0b972$70ffda80$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007501c0b972$70ffda80$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <007501c0b972$70ffda80$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" writes: > >> David Burn writes >> >Richard wrote: >> > >> >> Until now, I have been a supporter of the Marvin >> >> French and David Burn school, which strongly >> >> advocates the abolition of L12C3. >> > >> >> However, *I was wrong*. >> > >> >You certainly were! >> > >> >> Last night, I was a member of an AC which had >> >> to decide an extremely involuted appeal. If >> >> only L12C2 were available, one side or the >> >> other would have been unfairly treated. Luckily, >> >> the South Pacific Zone has exercised its >> >> option to enable operation of L12C3. So, the >> >> AC was able to award a score giving both >> >> sides a close approximation of *equity*. >> > >> >I have never opposed L12C3 in any shape, manner or form. I think it >is a >> >splendid Law, and that those jurisdictions who confine themselves to >> >L12C2 are labouring at a great disadvantage. My belief is that the >two >> >Laws may usefully be combined in order to arrive at overall equity - >> >that is: the non-offending side receives a score that reflects its >> >actual equity in a position; the offending side receives a score that >> >reflects the worst thing that could reasonably have happened to it. >> >Others do not agree with this implementation, preferring to give both >> >sides the same "equitable" score (and then impose a fine on the >> >offending side, or not, as the case may be). >> >> David and I are in complete disagreement over the actual >implementation >> - he being a "shoot everyone" freak, and I a "find an equitable score" >> freak. I think there is justification for both routes, but David's >> route has an undesirable side effect. >> >And there is one big objection to L12C3: The same irregularity will have >much different consequences, depending on who is doing the adjusting. We >need Laws whose effects are repeatable. Insofar as is possible, >identical infractions should result in identical score adjustments, as >revokes currently do. I am always surprised at how consistent the corpus of UK TDs is. We drink together after the game, and as one might expect we discuss rulings over a few jars late into the night. We also discuss matters which would render us liable to being sued for slander, but that's a different story. A TD from an entirely different region who has consulted with a couple of other TD's from his area will be giving the same (within 5-10%) adjustment as I in consultation with my cronies. I think it's to do with our training - the case studies, where we work in panels, produce amazingly similar results and this carries over to our at the table rulings. I recall one such where three panels out of 4 awarded 20% (+/- 5%) of each of 5 different outcomes, and the 4th was not far away from us. john > >Marv >Marvin L. French, ISPE >San Diego, CA, USA -- 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 Mar 31 12:45:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2V2joJ29834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:45:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from backup.san.rr.com (backup.san.rr.com [24.25.193.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2V2jit29828 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:45:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by backup.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:45:52 -0800 Message-ID: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:45:22 -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 Richard Hills wrote: > Until now, I have been a supporter of the Marvin > French school, which strongly > advocates the abolition of L12C3. (David Burn's name erased. I think you could safely name Adam Wildavsky and Danny Kleinman's names along with mine.) > > However, *I was wrong*. > > Last night, I was a member of an AC which had > to decide an extremely involuted appeal. If > only L12C2 were available, one side or the > other would have been unfairly treated. Luckily, > the South Pacific Zone has exercised its > option to enable operation of L12C3. So, the > AC was able to award a score giving both > sides a close approximation of *equity*. > > Richard > Not good, Richard. Please provide the whole story. I have never seen a case where both sides were unfairly treated by L12C2. > 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 Mar 31 17:42:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2V7fRr24044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:41:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2V7fKt24038 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:41:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-79-42.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.79.42]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f2V7fAv15177 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:41:10 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003f01c0b9b5$d5410080$2a4f063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <003b01c0b901$f8fb52a0$a611ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:38:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "For my part, I have ever believed, and now do know, that there are witches." - Sir Thomas Browne ::[]:: ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong _____________ \x/ _____________ > >As you will be aware, the WBFLC has now given > >NAs the option of allowing TDs this right. > >EBU and WBU have adopted this practice. > >Experienced TDs are in my opinion using it to > >good advantage, and the best bit is that the > >players like it. > >In my experience, it gives rise to fewer appeals. > >Anne Jones > > I've taken to doing it in club games too. It goes > down well. the major problem is that scoring > software makes a pig's ear out of it and it > takes a while to do all the computations. > -- > John (MadDog) Probst > +=+ I do think there is a certain logic in trying to restore a single result on a board when the game's aim to end up with a single result has been thrown off course by an irregularity. Also I share Kojak's view that restoration and punishment are chalk and cheese - that they should be dealt with independently of each other by separate procedures and making a separate judgement whether to punish. It feels right to say that the more expert the game, the more experienced the players, the greater the inclination to punish. I do not advocate harsh application of penalties in clubs, particularly where there are a lot of LOLs and the game is social. [They tell me the YC is full of LOLs ? :-) ]. As to the desirability of 12C3, I do not think the Western Hemisphere has given it a chance yet - their bridge culture tends to shut the door in its face without letting the salesman demonstrate his wares. For this reason the WBF is saying users of 12C3 can go down any of the three paths in the way they adjust scores, wanting to give 12C3 every chance to put down roots and grow. Time and experience will develop the technique of application, already well advanced over here, and I am prepared to find that different methods will be evident in different bridge climes. The 'feel good' factor comes from the way appeals have reduced dramatically; players are voting for it with their feet wherever I have been, but they can only do so when it is there to vote for. I am not convinced they will do so quite so readily if the DB method is adopted, but this is only gut feeling. ~ 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 Mar 31 19:07:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2V97Kv18949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:07:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2V97Bt18902 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:07:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.120.108.232] (helo=host213-120-108-232.btopenworld.com) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14jHLX-0002mZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 10:06:59 +0100 From: pam To: Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 10:07:04 +0100 Message-ID: <7f7bctob3sgrm376v3k26378u8pncm2eim@4ax.com> References: <003b01c0b901$f8fb52a0$a611ff3e@vnmvhhid> <003e01c0b970$41e6e2e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003e01c0b970$41e6e2e0$3b30d2cc@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 f2V97Et18917 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:19:08 -0800, Marv wrote: > >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> I've taken to doing it in club games too. It goes down well. the >major >> problem is that scoring software makes a pig's ear out of it and it >> takes a while to do all the computations. > >And a very smart guy like you, who can not only do the computations but >derive the probabilities of possible outcomes. Don't forget he wrote the scoring software 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 Sat Mar 31 20:41:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2VAfDx26262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:41:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2VAf6t26256 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:41:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.16.28]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010331104102.FZRS283.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:41:02 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01c0b9cf$9463a120$1c10ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <003b01c0b901$f8fb52a0$a611ff3e@vnmvhhid> <003e01c0b970$41e6e2e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <7f7bctob3sgrm376v3k26378u8pncm2eim@4ax.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:44:35 +0100 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: "pam" To: Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong > On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:19:08 -0800, Marv wrote: > > > > >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > >> I've taken to doing it in club games too. It goes down well. the > >major > >> problem is that scoring software makes a pig's ear out of it and it > >> takes a while to do all the computations. > > > >And a very smart guy like you, who can not only do the computations but > >derive the probabilities of possible outcomes. > > Don't forget he wrote the scoring software too :) > -- > I thought you were using Haworth John :-) 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/