From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 1 01:52:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2VFpYk00177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 01:51:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f2VFpPt00165 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 01:51:26 +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 14jNer-0009tA-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 15:51:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 16:37:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong References: <003b01c0b901$f8fb52a0$a611ff3e@vnmvhhid> <003e01c0b970$41e6e2e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <7f7bctob3sgrm376v3k26378u8pncm2eim@4ax.com> <002e01c0b9cf$9463a120$1c10ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <002e01c0b9cf$9463a120$1c10ff3e@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 <002e01c0b9cf$9463a120$1c10ff3e@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >----- 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 wrote the YC software for the YC, and it is a complete club system. I use Haworth on my laptop. >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/ -- 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 Apr 1 03:55:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2VHsdj17062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 03:54:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from trex.uia.net (otrex.uia.net [207.67.168.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2VHsWt17057 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 03:54:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from uia.net (99.pacwestuser.uia.net [131.161.68.99]) by trex.uia.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2VHsi145327; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 09:54:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3AC61BEE.A9FFC6EF@uia.net> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 10:03:26 -0800 From: Irv Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ltrent@home.com CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] degreee of obligation, was : Referring to CC References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I Wish I could say the same for the the Westin Crown Hotel, but I just can't - service was spotty and (apparently) grudgingly given. We had a defective lamp and it took a full WEEK to get it repaired. I also thought the carpets looked lousy and the general feel of the place was bordering on seedy. I will avoid Westin places in the future, unless I learn something I don't current know. Irv Linda Trent wrote: > >> > >> 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/ -- "The vice-president's plan does not have annual accountability--3rd grade, 4th grade, 5th grade. We need the demand on results." George W. Bush, in the 3rd debate. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 1 05:52:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f2VJqKV17224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 05:52:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe59.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.194]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2VJqEt17220 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 05:52:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:52:07 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.166.12] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 10:54:41 -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: 31 Mar 2001 19:52:07.0474 (UTC) FILETIME=[1113E120:01C0BA1C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong | 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 Ok, Marv, it is my view that an unfair ruling is one that does not comply with the law. Here is a case where I think a L12C2 adjustment was unfair in both directions. ACBL 1998 NS-V D-E Q JTxx AKQJxx QT JTxxx A98xx Xxx -- Txxx x X KJxxxxx Kx AKQxxx xx A9x W -- -- P 1H P 3S* P 4H PPP** *= not alerted, asked and explained as preemptive [CC was marked splinter and was correct] **= N did not notify the table of the failure to alert nor the incorrect explanation after the dummy was faced the director was called and the above explained. Before play continued, away from the table E asserted that with correct info he would have bid 4C and later a lead directing 4S. a club was led and 13 tricks were taken. At the end of the hand damage was claimed as E was deprived of bidding 4C and the lead directing 4S. Ruling: after consultation Ave+/Ave-; protested as violating of L12C2. After consultation the ruling was 7SX EW down 3. As if NS had complied with procedure, no mention was made of the failure to alert, the UI from the misexplanation, nor the failure to correct prior to the opening lead. Note that with the playable fit South did not pass 3S or raise to 4S. The thought crossed my mind that S acted on inference from the question induced by the non alert [in the ACBL you are expected to clarify non alerted bids that seem strange]. Also, there was no slam move [bypassing 4C denying the ace]. This suggests strongly that NS would not persevere to 6H [their best contract] and that from N's point of view S made the weakest of all rebids in 4H. I think it is reasonable to expect that N has the values to bid 5H over 4S on this auction but not 6H. imo, the likely outcome is 5SX which should go down one but could conceiveably make. Certainly, the NS score faired handsomely with this ruling. But I would contend that it was extremely unfair to them not withstanding its failure to comply with 12C2. Why? Because their behavior has been encouraged to continue unchecked. But of course the assertion that prompted your post was that L12C2 often treats one side unfairly. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 1 22:10:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f31C9q700021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 22:09:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f31C9ft00006 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 22:09:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.58]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f31C9Zg29633 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:09:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AC70D57.FE167233@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 13:13:27 +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] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: <200103301951.LAA28124@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: > > > 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. > Correct analysis. We should only look at cases where the first infraction is a revoke. Does equity after this include penalty tricks, is the question. > (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? > No it is not. And I doubt that many would disagree (although that is usually not a good thing to do on blml) > 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. > Why ? Adam has given a good example. The second infraction "costs" declarer 2 tricks, and he should be given them, even if at the beginning of the hand, 11 tricks are the most he can get. Now why should this be any different when the second infraction is a revoke. Only because of L64B2 ? Certainly not. We know L64C overrides L64A, and L64B3, and L64B6, and 4 and 5 as well, so why not L64B2 as well ? And I happen to believe that L64C provides the same kind of equity as in Adam's example above L16 and L12C2 do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 1 22:10:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f31C9re00023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 22:09:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f31C9ht00011 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 22:09:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.58]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f31C9dg29649 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:09:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AC7104C.1E978858@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 13:26:04 +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] Sorrento Appeals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I can inform you that the (10) Sorrento appeals are on the Swiss site. Also the appeals from Bellaria (last year EC mixed) which for a reason I don't remember were not posted there yet (my fault, I guess) are now on the same site. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 1 22:10:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f31C9x200027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 22:09:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f31C9qt00022 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 22:09:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.58]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f31C9gg29662 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:09:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AC7134C.2B30E89@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 13:38:52 +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] Sorrento and L12C3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At the beginning of the championships, the TD's were reminded that they had the option of using L12C3, and were encouraged to write them down and hand them to me for publication. That last thing did not occur though, due to an overload of work from the TD's. The EBL should really start to invest more in TD's and less in AC's. What did surface was a particular liking of the TD's for a ruling that looks like a L12C1 Av+/Av- ruling, but which in fact is a L12C3 ruling. In fact, one TD erroneously (IMHO) wrote L12C1 on his appeal form. 4 cases were brought to my attention. 1) Appeal 3 : The 2 choices were between an absolute top and an absolute bottom. TD's decision of 60/40 upheld because it would be the same as giving 57% of the making contract. 2) unpublished : the TD's decided to award 50% of one result, 25% of another, and 12.5% of 2 others. It turned out at 58.3%, so perhaps 60/40 would have spared them much time. Yet I think it is better to calculate something like this and have it turn out at 58.3%. Lazyness, or even overwork, should not be an excuse. 3) Appeal 8 : TD awarded 60/40. OS appealed but did not question the AS itself. Appeal judged frivolous and AS not discussed in AC. 4) Appeal 10 : TD awarded 60/40. NOS appealed stating that even the least of the possible scores would give them more than 60%. AS adjusted to something that resulted in 71% for NOS. cases 3 and 4 were from the same session/room, in which there was a real case overload. I am certain the TD's realize they should not give 60/40 out of ease. 60/40 should be reserved for cases like 1), where it's top/bottom or 2), where probably play had not proceeded unhindered beyond some early point. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 1 22:10:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f31C9ms00018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 22:09:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f31C9ct00004 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 22:09:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.58]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f31C9Vg29621 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:09:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AC70471.BBB2EA20@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 12:35:29 +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] Timing of TD call References: <200103291712.JAA02509@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: > > > > > 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: > > > 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. > Well Adam, there is a difference. If the conversation is only 2 sentences long, it could well mean that the opponents do not know the alert procedure, therefor have not been misinformed. In that case, there is no reason to change the bidding. If OTOH, the opponents do realize that the non-alert and the subsequent explanation constitute a "change of explanation", then the irregularity has been noticed. OK, technically, it has not been "attention drawn to". But I do not believe this is important in the discussion. It may not be an infraction to not call the TD at this time, but that does not mean that you do not have the L21B1 right to change your call. (This sentence is too weird - even apart from the split infinitive - let me try again : Even if you have not made an infraction by not calling the TD at this time, you still have the right to change your call, just as the TD would tell you if you had called him) The real question is : Whether or not a TD has been called to tell you about the option, you have the right to change your call under L21B1. If you do not make use of this right, do you then lose the possibility of a score correction. I think you do indeed lose this possibility, but based on which law is this ? I do not read anything in L40C and/or L12C that clearly shows this must be so. > 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/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 2 01:38:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f31FcGt00808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 01:38:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk ([194.200.20.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f31Fc9t00804 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 01:38:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from ad41-s16-154-222-110.cw-visp.com ([195.44.222.110] helo=netscapeonline.co.uk) by mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 14jjqR-00023T-00; Sun, 01 Apr 2001 15:32:48 +0000 Message-ID: <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 16:38:09 +0100 From: rhoxolan Organization: Netscape Online member X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roger Pewick CC: blml Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Certainly, the NS score faired handsomely with this ruling. But I would contend that it was extremely unfair to them not withstanding > its failure to comply with 12C2. Why? Because their behavior has > been encouraged to continue unchecked. > > But of course the assertion that prompted your post was that L12C2 > often treats one side unfairly. > > regards > roger pewick > -- > I do not understand why there is discussion around 12C3 and 12C2. I compare 12C3 with 64C as a kind of long stop or safety net. Is this not what it is for? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 2 02:37:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f31GbXJ10010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 02:37:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f31GbQt09971 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 02:37:27 +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 f31GYgT04144 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 12:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3AC70471.BBB2EA20@village.uunet.be> References: <200103291712.JAA02509@mailhub.irvine.com> <3AC70471.BBB2EA20@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 12:35:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Herman De Wael wrote: >Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> > >> > 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: >> >> >> 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. >> > >Well Adam, there is a difference. > >If the conversation is only 2 sentences long, it could well >mean that the opponents do not know the alert procedure, >therefor have not been misinformed. In that case, there is >no reason to change the bidding. Huh? Whether they notice they've been misinformed or not, if there was a failure to alert, they *have* been misinformed. >If OTOH, the opponents do realize that the non-alert and the >subsequent explanation constitute a "change of explanation", >then the irregularity has been noticed. Whoa. Back to square one: the question is "if a player asks about a non-alerted call, and is informed that its meaning is one which is alertable, has attention been drawn to an irregularity?" The answer is no, it has not. That doesn't mean, of course, that no one can call the TD - it simply means that Law 9B1 is not invoked. "Attention drawn" is not the same thing as "noticed". I might *notice* that there are two irregularities implicit in opponent's explanation of his partner's double as "sputnik"; that doesn't mean attention has been drawn to them. That only happens if I (or someone else at the table) now says either "isn't that alertable?" or "naming a convention is not an adequate explanation of its meaning" or similar words. >OK, technically, it has not been "attention drawn to". But >I do not believe this is important in the discussion. It >may not be an infraction to not call the TD at this time, >but that does not mean that you do not have the L21B1 right >to change your call. But one cannot make his own rulings at the table - that is the prerogative of the Director alone. Law 72A6. >(This sentence is too weird - even apart from the split >infinitive - let me try again : Even if you have not made an >infraction by not calling the TD at this time, you still >have the right to change your call, just as the TD would >tell you if you had called him) See above. >The real question is : Whether or not a TD has been called >to tell you about the option, you have the right to change >your call under L21B1. >If you do not make use of this right, do you then lose the >possibility of a score correction. > >I think you do indeed lose this possibility, but based on >which law is this ? > >I do not read anything in L40C and/or L12C that clearly >shows this must be so. I don't think there's anything in the laws *anywhere* that would show it. An infraction has occured. Players are entitled to redress. Period. Yes, I know of the principle that "experienced players" (whatever that means) are expected to protect themselves. I think it's a crock - the laws don't say that. > > 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. IMO, the answer to Adam's question is that attention has not been drawn, so 9B1 is not invoked, and the NOS is still entitled to redress (within the correction period) for the infraction. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOsdZRL2UW3au93vOEQLS4ACbBBAHWuwEamq62Ioc/lMLEZhnAGIAoMMA Dstfi+v9MgjnfllRGAzp1cGg =xCnD -----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 Apr 2 06:47:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f31Kk4624165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 06:46:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f31Kjtt24127 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 06:45:56 +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 ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:46:27 -0700 Message-ID: <002a01c0baec$b5e7f620$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200103291712.JAA02509@mailhub.irvine.com> <3AC70471.BBB2EA20@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:36:07 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > 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: > >> > >> > >> 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. > >> > > > >Well Adam, there is a difference. > > > >If the conversation is only 2 sentences long, it could well > >mean that the opponents do not know the alert procedure, > >therefor have not been misinformed. In that case, there is > >no reason to change the bidding. > > Huh? Whether they notice they've been misinformed or not, if there > was a failure to alert, they *have* been misinformed. Not necessarily. If they know the correct information from another source (e.g., the opposing CC), they are not in posession of misinformation. > > >If OTOH, the opponents do realize that the non-alert and the > >subsequent explanation constitute a "change of explanation", > >then the irregularity has been noticed. > > Whoa. Back to square one: the question is "if a player asks about a > non-alerted call, and is informed that its meaning is one which is > alertable, has attention been drawn to an irregularity?" The answer > is no, it has not. That doesn't mean, of course, that no one can call > the TD - it simply means that Law 9B1 is not invoked. > > "Attention drawn" is not the same thing as "noticed". I might > *notice* that there are two irregularities implicit in opponent's > explanation of his partner's double as "sputnik"; that doesn't mean > attention has been drawn to them. That only happens if I (or someone > else at the table) now says either "isn't that alertable?" or "naming > a convention is not an adequate explanation of its meaning" or > similar words. > > > Even if you have not made an > >infraction by not calling the TD at this time, you still > >have the right to change your call, just as the TD would > >tell you if you had called him) > > But one cannot make his own rulings at the table - that is the > prerogative of the Director alone. Law 72A6. > >The real question is : Whether or not a TD has been called > >to tell you about the option, you have the right to change > >your call under L21B1. > >If you do not make use of this right, do you then lose the > >possibility of a score correction. > > > >I think you do indeed lose this possibility, but based on > >which law is this ? > > > >I do not read anything in L40C and/or L12C that clearly > >shows this must be so. > > I don't think there's anything in the laws *anywhere* that would show > it. An infraction has occured. Players are entitled to redress. > Period. Yes, I know of the principle that "experienced players" > (whatever that means) are expected to protect themselves. I think > it's a crock - the laws don't say that. The "pinciple" only clarifies that if opponents somehow have the right information, or can be assumed to have it, an Alert mistake in itself does not constitute MI. It breaks a regulation, but not a Law. > > > > > > So I still don't know what the answer to my question is. > > IMO, the answer to Adam's question is that attention has not been > drawn, so 9B1 is not invoked, and the NOS is still entitled to > redress (within the correction period) for the infraction. > But only to the extent that MI has adversely affected their side, remembering that an experienced player is not necessarily misinformed by a mere Alert mistake. If that were true I could have had hundreds of tops from opposing Alert mistakes over the years. Also remembering that if a player knew he could change his call, and chose not to, he cannot usually claim later that the failure to change the call should be a factor when deciding on redressable damage. I say "usually," because I sense that there may be some exceptions arising from partner's actions. 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 Apr 2 10:12:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f320CJ712684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:12:19 +1000 (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 f320CDt12680 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:12:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.134.10] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14jrx2-0000Cd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 02 Apr 2001 01:12:09 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01c0bb09$7cd1d500$0a8601d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001701c0b8fd$65cdd9c0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> <003701c0b91a$f17f1660$6054063e@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: I was wrong Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 01:11:36 +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 Grattan wrote: > 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. Oh, I don't mind in the least. For practical purposes, if you award the same score to both sides after "generous weighting", the result is pretty much the same as if you award one side its equity and the other side the worst of all possible worlds. I favour the course I have advocated simply because it concentrates the mind of a director or an AC on determining objectively the actual equity in a position, rather than in making subjective judgements as to how "generous" the "weighting" shall be. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 2 10:28:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f320SYT12712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:28:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f320SSt12708 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:28:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.134.10] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14jsCl-0000Ap-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 02 Apr 2001 01:28:23 +0100 Message-ID: <002701c0bb0b$c1986bc0$0a8601d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001701c0b8fd$65cdd9c0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: I was wrong Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 01:27:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John wrote: > 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%) It's worse than that. The reason these things are known in the EBU as "Burn rulings" is that about fifteen years ago at Brighton, I chaired an AC dealing with a hand on which one side had cheated its way to three clubs (1H-2C-2H-slow Pass-Pass-3C), ridiculously doubled by the other side ("if we beat it, we get +200 and a top; if they make it, we'll call for a ruling on the hesitation"). The committee's decision was that the cheating pair got minus 110 for the opponents' playing in 2H, which was a bottom for them; the doublers got the minus 870 they deserved (since there were ten tricks in clubs on any defence), which was not very good for them either. The total matchpoints scored by both sides after the adjustment therefore amounted to precisely 0.00%. This ruling was accepted by both sides without demur. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 2 14:34:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f324Xcx05042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:33:38 +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 (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f324XWt05038 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:33:33 +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 ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 21:34:04 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 21:26:28 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "rhoxolan": > > I do not understand why there is discussion around 12C3 and 12C2. I > compare > 12C3 with 64C as a kind of long stop or safety net. Is this not what it > is for? Yes, originally. Its purpose was to permit scores assigned per L12C2 to be modified ("vary an assigned adjusted score") when the L12C2 outcome is perceived to be inequitable. Using what I understand to be Grattan's definition, "equitable" means that each side gets its perceived equity in the deal that existed before the infraction, giving benefit of any doubt to the non-offenders. Actually there is nothing in the Laws that says redress of damage must be equitable. Many of the Laws have penalties that are sometimes quite inequitable (e.g., penalty for a revoke). There are at least three reasons for this: 1. It is impossible to devise penalties that are both simple and equitable, and simplicity is important enough to justify some inequities. 2. If infractions are sometimes penalized with more severity than is necessary for equity, players are more likely to play by the rules. 3. Penalties must ensure that non-offenders are fully protected, which sometimes results in over-protection. I doubt that many would accept total equity as the governing criterion for L12C3 score adjustments. Most apply L12C3 in a way that merely varies the adjusted score(s) considered in L12C2 to incorporate multiple possible results for one or both sides in the score adjustment(s), combining them in a weighted fashion according to their probabilities. The non-offenders are given the benefit of any doubt when calculating the probabilities. That is probably its most reasonable application. It is a move toward equity and away from both simplicity and deterrence. Some of us feel this is a move in the wrong direction. However, if you go through the Lille AC writeups, you find that L12C3 was used to justify any action that the AC thought suitable, usually in disregard of L12C2. That attitude alone, apparently legal, is enough to brand L12C3 as an unacceptable Law. 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 Apr 2 17:24:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f327O4H15994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:24:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f327Nut15947 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:23:57 +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, 2 Apr 2001 00:24:29 -0700 Message-ID: <002801c0bb45$d864dc00$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001701c0b8fd$65cdd9c0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> <002701c0bb0b$c1986bc0$0a8601d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: I was wrong Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:21:53 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn > John wrote: > > > 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%) > > It's worse than that. The reason these things are known in the EBU as > "Burn rulings" is that about fifteen years ago at Brighton, I chaired an > AC dealing with a hand on which one side had cheated its way to three > clubs (1H-2C-2H-slow Pass-Pass-3C), ridiculously doubled by the other > side ("if we beat it, we get +200 and a top; if they make it, we'll call > for a ruling on the hesitation"). Perfectly legal. TDs and ACs understandably want it to be illegal, but it isn't. > The committee's decision was that the > cheating pair got minus 110 for the opponents' playing in 2H, which was > a bottom for them; the doublers got the minus 870 they deserved (since > there were ten tricks in clubs on any defence), which was not very good > for them either. The total matchpoints scored by both sides after the > adjustment therefore amounted to precisely 0.00%. This ruling was > accepted by both sides without demur. > The NOS would have had +110, evidently, absent the infraction. Since there was no way for them to attain a better result no matter what they did, they are entitled to the +110, per L12C2. Had they beaten 3C for +200 because of an opposing revoke, they would get that (or would you take it away from them?). If they could easily have beaten 3C doubled, but did something very crazy to let it make, then they keep that result. They would not have been directly damaged by the infraction in that case, so no redress. In any case, the OS gets -110 or the table result, whichever is worse. All very simple, and all in accordance with 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 Mon Apr 2 17:41:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f327fWQ18653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:41:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from listonosz.comarch.pl (listonosz.comarch.pl [195.116.193.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f327egt18357 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:40:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.sse.comarch [10.1.10.136]) by listonosz.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0A217677 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:40:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3AC82C5F.A56445A9@comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 09:38:07 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [fr] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi gang, A ruling from Polish Division Three that looked rather trivial to me but will get to an AC. Screens. W N E S 2H* p 2S* p 2NT 3D p p p WE were on the same side of the screen as usual. 2H opening was alerted on both sides of the screen and explained as 11-16, 5+-5+ without spades. 2S was alerted on both sides of the screen and explained as a relay. 2NT was alerted on NE side and explained as "minors". North tried to show his major two-suiter with the 3D cue-bid. On the WS side 2NT wasn't alerted, South never asked its meaning and assumed 3D to be natural. 3D finished -5. South called the TD. The ruling was "result stands for both sides". North-South appealed. To me the ruling looks correct and rather obious [no, I wasn't involved :)] but perhaps I am missing something (OK, almost correct, IM(H)O a PP should have been given to WE for the failure to alert). Comments welcome. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 2 17:54:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f327seJ23275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:54:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f327sXt23232 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:54:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-58-222.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.58.222]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f327sNv04356 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:54:23 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:51:54 +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 "A little rule, a little sway, A sunbeam in a winter's day, Is all the proud and mighty have Between the cradle and the grave." - John Dyer. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: blml Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 5:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong > > From: "rhoxolan": > > > > > > I do not understand why there is discussion around 12C3 and > > 12C2. I compare 12C3 with 64C as a kind of long stop or > > safety net. Is this not what it is for? > > Yes, originally. Its purpose was to permit scores assigned per > L12C2 to be modified ("vary an assigned adjusted score") when > the L12C2 outcome is perceived to be inequitable. > > Using what I understand to be Grattan's definition, "equitable" > means that each side gets its perceived equity in the deal > that existed before the infraction, giving benefit of any doubt > to the non-offenders. > +=+ accepting that a fine tuned equity is only possible in the simplest of cases+=+ > > Actually there is nothing in the Laws that says redress > of damage must be equitable. > +=+ Apart, perhaps, from 84D and the reference to '*redress* for damage' in the Scope. Plus the fact that 12C3 itself sets the ultimate target as being equity and is part of the law.+=+ > > Many of the Laws have penalties that are > sometimes quite inequitable (e.g., penalty > for a revoke). There are at least three > reasons for this: > +=+ Penalties are to be distinguished from score adjustment. It is shown in 12B that equity is not the consideration in the case of a penalty. +=+ > 1. It is impossible to devise penalties that are > both simple and equitable, and simplicity is > important enough to justify some inequities. > > 2. If infractions are sometimes penalized with > more severity than is necessary for equity, > players are more likely to play by the rules. > > 3. Penalties must ensure that non-offenders > are fully protected, which sometimes results > in over-protection. > > I doubt that many would accept total equity > as the governing criterion for L12C3 score > adjustments. Most apply L12C3 in a way that > merely varies the adjusted score(s) considered > in L12C2 to incorporate multiple possible > results for one or both sides in the score > adjustment(s), combining them in a weighted > fashion according to their probabilities. The > non-offenders are given the benefit of any doubt > when calculating the probabilities. That is > probably its most reasonable application. It is > a move toward equity and away from both > simplicity and deterrence. Some of us feel this > is a move in the wrong direction. > +=+ Practice or convenience of practice is one thing; the aim of the law another. The latter is expressed clearly enough. But vengeance is in no sense the purpose of the laws and I see the objection to 12C3 as a desire to avenge more than a desire to deter. The possibility of a PP is always there for deterrence. +=+ > > However, if you go through the Lille AC writeups, > you find that L12C3 was used to justify any > action that the AC thought suitable, usually in > disregard of L12C2. That attitude alone, > apparently legal, is enough to brand L12C3 as > an unacceptable Law. > +=+ That is a self-fulfilling piece of sophistry; where 12C3 is used the AC is defining what it considers to be fair and equitable. That is the power remitted to it by 12C3, overriding 12C2, and in the modern usage also now - by delegation from Appeals Committees - with much success to Directors. +=+ > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA > +=+ My comments have been interspersed ~ 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 Apr 2 18:53:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f328rPx01549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:53:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f328rDt01541 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:53:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-194.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.194]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f328r9i05387 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:53:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AC83DD6.984F3140@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:52:38 +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] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling References: <3AC82C5F.A56445A9@comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Hi gang, > > A ruling from Polish Division Three > that looked rather trivial to me > but will get to an AC. > > Screens. > > W N E S > 2H* p 2S* p > 2NT 3D p p > p > > WE were on the same side of the screen as usual. > I feel a Polish joke coming on - West and East on the same side of the screen ? That should be fun ! The ruling seems correct to me to, it seems strange not to assume that 2NT does not show one of the three possible 2-suiters, and to ask which one it is. But perhaps South did not receive enough of an alert over 2He and 2Sp. But I also believe South was asleep. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 2 18:53:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f328rOe01548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:53:24 +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 f328rCt01540 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:53:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-194.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.194]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f328r6i05365 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:53:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AC83C4D.944F3DAD@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:46:05 +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] Timing of TD call References: <200103291712.JAA02509@mailhub.irvine.com> <3AC70471.BBB2EA20@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > >If the conversation is only 2 sentences long, it could well > >mean that the opponents do not know the alert procedure, > >therefor have not been misinformed. In that case, there is > >no reason to change the bidding. > > Huh? Whether they notice they've been misinformed or not, if there > was a failure to alert, they *have* been misinformed. > No Ed, you misunderstand. If an opponent fails to see that the non-alert and the subsequent information are not meaning the same thing, then that opponent has not been misinformed by the non-alert. So either the "infraction" must be noticed - or there was no reason to change the call in the first place. Which of course leads to another question. My opponents don't alert (or do - same problem can exist). I make a call. LHO makes a call. Partner asks, and receives an answer that does not conform to the alert procedure. I have been misinformed. Am I allowed to draw attention to the misinformation and call the TD ? I believe I should be allowed to do so. > >If OTOH, the opponents do realize that the non-alert and the > >subsequent explanation constitute a "change of explanation", > >then the irregularity has been noticed. > > Whoa. Back to square one: the question is "if a player asks about a > non-alerted call, and is informed that its meaning is one which is > alertable, has attention been drawn to an irregularity?" The answer > is no, it has not. That doesn't mean, of course, that no one can call > the TD - it simply means that Law 9B1 is not invoked. > > "Attention drawn" is not the same thing as "noticed". I might > *notice* that there are two irregularities implicit in opponent's > explanation of his partner's double as "sputnik"; that doesn't mean > attention has been drawn to them. That only happens if I (or someone > else at the table) now says either "isn't that alertable?" or "naming > a convention is not an adequate explanation of its meaning" or > similar words. > I realize that there is a difference. But at least the "damaged" player ought now to call attention to the irregularity, or lose his options as in the appeal that prompted the thread. But I do not believe that it is L9 that does this. There has been misinformation, and I have noticed this. Whether I call the TD or not, I have L21B1 rights, and I should invoke them, or lose the chance of an adjustment. > >OK, technically, it has not been "attention drawn to". But > >I do not believe this is important in the discussion. It > >may not be an infraction to not call the TD at this time, > >but that does not mean that you do not have the L21B1 right > >to change your call. > > But one cannot make his own rulings at the table - that is the > prerogative of the Director alone. Law 72A6. > True - I need to call the TD in order to exercise my L21B1 right, but that does not mean I don't have the same right if I choose not to call the TD. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 2 22:09:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32C8hg07077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:08:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32C8at07073 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:08:37 +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 f32C8Wk04299 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:08:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010402074233.00abcd70@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, 02 Apr 2001 08:09:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: I was wrong In-Reply-To: <001701c0b8fd$65cdd9c0$59bd01d5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:39 AM 3/30/01, David wrote: >I have never opposed L12C3 in any shape, manner or form. > >You're probably thinking of Eric Landau. To clarify my position, I do not oppose L12C3 in theory. I have, however, supported the ACBL's election not to use it. I see L12C3 as a useful tool for SOs who have a standing pool of AC members who have been educated and trained in the handling of appeals to the point where players can expect rulings by different individual ACs to be reasonably consistent. But in the large and litigious ACBL, the typical AC member is chosen ad hoc from among the players at the tournament, has received no training, not even written guidelines, and has had no exposure to the workings of an AC beyond their personal experiences of having appeared before them. ACBL members about to appear before ACs by and large believe that the ruling they will get will have more to do with who's on the AC than with the merits of either side's case. (I do not suggest that there is widespread concern about bias or favoritism, although there's certainly some of that, which may or may not be justified, but rather merely about AC members who don't know very much about the rules or how to apply them.) In that environment, enabling L12C3 would make a bad situation worse by putting a powerful tool in the hands of those who have no idea how to use it properly. The ACBL might say that this is not true, that they have made great strides over the past few years in addressing the situation. But the fact is that they have done so, apparently with some fair amount of success, only for their premier 3-times-a-year NABCs; their effort has yet to have any significant effect at the Regional and Sectional tournaments that make up the vast majority of the ACBL tournament calendar. My attitude is that automobiles are indisputably useful, but it is nevertheless irresponsible to buy your child a car before you teach them how to drive. 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 Apr 2 22:24:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32CNll09728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:23:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32CNet09695 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:23:41 +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 OAA24237; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:23:09 +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 OAA29077; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:23:13 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010402142623.00878c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 14:26:23 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] what to do against absurd appeals ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello everobody, I did not dare send this one yesterday, lest you decline believing it. But everything herewith is certified true. It raises a question. Soccer referees have been asked, in case a forward simulated a foul in opps' 18 yards (16 m), to automatically issue a yellow card against him. This has seldom been followed, because there is a rule that says 'when in doubt, don't whistle the penalty', and to give a YC [ no, not a bridge club ;-) ] because you don't know seems harsh. But ... what about bridge ? South / EW vul South is a strong player, regular customer of the Belgian play-offs ; the other three are fairly competent, but E/W are not a regular partnership. All four are notoriously dynamic players. K98 AQJxxx Ax xx J7 10x 10 K9xxx J10xx KQxxx AKQJxx x AQ6xxx x xx 10xxx W N E S 2S (1) 3C 4S X (2) p p p (1) weak, often 5 cards (2) at the time of the lead, South asked about the double ; West simply answers 'penalty, I suppose' (CC says competitive doubles below game level) West leads CK, then CQ, East discards D2 to asks for another club. West obliges. South thinks for a long while (he is known as very slow), then discards a diamond ; East ditches a heart. West now plays a heart. Barring some strange decision, the contract is now cold. But now three unexpected events happen in quick succession : 1) South calls for dummy's Queen 2) East plays low without a flicker 3) South goes into the tank and comes out with the S9, low from East, low from his hand (!), Jack from west who nearly dropped his cards from surprise. Regaining his composure, West plays another club. Ruff with the 8, overruff, diamond to the Dummy. South plays HA and West ruffs !!! Down 2. NS -100 would be about 20% NS -300 is a bottom NS 790 would be 90% South calls the director. Tells him he would have played differently without the 'wrong explanation'. East's main argument : facing a vulnerable 3-level overcall, short in my partner's suit, controls in the other two, overruff potential, and N/S are overbidders : plenty of reasons for a penalty double. I was wrong, because partner was on the light side ; so what ? South's main argument : after the HQ held, it was sort of obvious East must have had all missing trumps ; what else would he have doubled on ? Director : so it was East's play of the heart 5 that made you play wrong, not the explanation, huh ? What are you calling me for ? Strong players felt East's double was perfectly normal, even being told it would be a clear penalty double. The director let the score stand (should be obvious now), and later told me : 'I've the gut feeling that South was double-shooting, but I can't prove it. Could I have penalized him for trying ?' Well, could he ? Regards, Alain -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 2 23:19:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32DJIb29678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:19:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32DJBt29646 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:19:12 +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 f32DJ6N68276 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010402084236.00abc4f0@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, 02 Apr 2001 09:20:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? In-Reply-To: <200103301951.LAA28124@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 03:51 PM 3/30/01, Adam wrote: >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. The usual practice when adjudicating the outcome of a deal in which there have been two offenses by the same side is to consider the offenses in the order in which they occurred. I suggest that this is not appropriate when the first offense is a revoke, because L64A tells us that the automatic penalty for a revoke is applied "after play ceases". Adjudications on an equity basis are made by presuming that the play (or auction) would have gone differently absent the infraction. The double-revoke issue may well be specific to double revokes only (offhand, I can't think of other cases, but perhaps someone else can), because what it requires to make sense is not that "the first infraction is a revoke" but rather that the first infraction *to be penalized* is a revoke. >(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. And I think that's the case under my interpretation of the law. In Adam's example, I believe we should rule on the UI infraction, presumably determining that the club return is disallowed, yielding 11 tricks to declarer. Then, after the (presumptive) play "ceases" with declarer having taken 11 tricks, L64 is applied, and an additional trick is transferred to the NOS. This is what I was trying to get at in the paragraph cited by Adam: Equity at the second revoke does indeed incorporate the effect of the first revoke on the play; I argue only that it does not incorporate the automatic penalty. We adjudicate revokes by computing two possible adjustments, one under L64A-B (automatic penalty), one under L64C (equity adjustment). In the case of a single revoke, we give the more favorable adjustment to the NOS after play ceases. If there is a second revoke, we use the same procedure. The question is how we determine the possible L64C adjustment for the second revoke. Does equity for the NOS at that point include only the original L64C adjustment (if any), or does it include the L64A-B adjustment when that is more favorable to the NOS? 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 Apr 3 00:14:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32EENj11354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:14:23 +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 ([192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f32EE7t11350 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:14:12 +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 KAA27219; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA194840562; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:09:22 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:09:21 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, john@asimere.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:09:21 -0400" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: 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) ________________________________________________________________________ I strongly agree. One of the most important problem we have as Tds is dealing with players having impression that Laws do not apply the same manner form clubs to clubs or from tournaments to tournaments. Every week, some players aks me questions trying to understand what is behind the ruling they got elsewhere. I try to avoid giving my opinion on rulings made in other clubs, invoking the difficulty to judge without all facts gathered on the floor. But I see "horrors", mostly on judgment rulings but some times on book rulings. As John said: "Players want to know". Not so easy. This dicussion list is a proud. But the more we can have mechanical book rulings, the more this game will stay enjoyable for most players... and for TDs. Revoke is a good example. Most experienced players know they often loose tricks when revoking. Just stay awaken. But I do no see how "conventional insufficient bib" can easily be solved with a "book ruling" law. An insufficient 2D overcall after 2NT may convey much more UI than an insufficient response of 2D on the same opening (insufficient transfer. If the law 72B2 is needed, it has to be clarified. An insufficient bid cannot be conventional. The lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination can be (4S - P - 3NT : 4NT beeing Blackwood). The insufficient bid could also have been conventional if made after the same sequence at a lower level (2NT - 2D when 1NT - 2D is a convention). If law makers want book rulings on both cases it has to be clearly rewritten. 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 Apr 3 00:37:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32Eaqr11400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:36:52 +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 f32Eakt11396 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:36:47 +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 14k5Rg-0008vo-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:36:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:35:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling References: <3AC82C5F.A56445A9@comarch.pl> <3AC83DD6.984F3140@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AC83DD6.984F3140@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 <3AC83DD6.984F3140@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >> Hi gang, >> >> A ruling from Polish Division Three >> that looked rather trivial to me >> but will get to an AC. >> >> Screens. >> >> W N E S >> 2H* p 2S* p >> 2NT 3D p p >> p >> >> WE were on the same side of the screen as usual. >> > >I feel a Polish joke coming on - West and East on the same >side of the screen ? That should be fun ! > >The ruling seems correct to me to, it seems strange not to >assume that 2NT does not show one of the three possible >2-suiters, and to ask which one it is. > >But perhaps South did not receive enough of an alert over >2He and 2Sp. >But I also believe South was asleep. > Hang on guys. If south had known that 2N shows the minors, and he and his partner have some sort of "unusual vs unusual" agreement then would he have passed 3D? Why can't South assume that 2N shows H and C or an entirely different hand and that partner just picked a spot to play. South *has* been mis-informed. Whether I adjust would depend on what he said when I talked to him. As it's All Fool's Day I'll probably adjust to 4Dx - 6. 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 Apr 3 01:37:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32FbDR13674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32Fatt13645 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:36:57 +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 14k6Nm-0000rl-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:36:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:02:33 +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> <019701c0b8db$88a90220$4ea8aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <019701c0b8db$88a90220$4ea8aec7@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 >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. That is merely directorial incompetence, so hardly that relevant to what the Law is. The way you describe "two-way DONT" it is not currently legal to correct it without penalty. If your argument for not changing the Law is that people may cheat I find it an unconvincing argument. Sure, people may cheat. It would only take a couple of occasions and they would get hit hard. But I still think overall it would be a better 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 Tue Apr 3 01:37:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32FbD913675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32Fatt13646 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:36:57 +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 14k6Nm-0000rk-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:36:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:55:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC References: <200103292032.MAA06416@mailhub.irvine.com> <001f01c0b8a8$04588320$0f497ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001f01c0b8a8$04588320$0f497ad5@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 >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. Just to make it clear, it is my belief that you may not look at a CC when it is an oppo's or partner's turn to call or play. But that does not mean I think this is best - I do not. Best, in my view, is that you should not be allowed to look at a CC when it is LHO's or partner's turn to call or play: you should have a perfect right to look at a CC when it is RHO's or your turn to play. This also partly solves the problems of partner doing something which depends for alerting/explaining on an opponents' call: the moment partner makes his call you may legitimately look at the CC. Furthermore, while I think the above is best, I would not mind a rule that allows you to look at the CC all the time, and we just deal with UI as it arises. But my arguments in the present thread, excepting those in this post, are based on what the current legal position is. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 01:37:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32FbNK13683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:23 +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 f32Fatt13644 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:36:57 +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 14k6Nr-0000rm-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:36:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:07:44 +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 >>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? C'mon, John, htis is David here. Stick the honesty chip back into your brain. There are two red aces out. You need to find the one in pd's hand. Declarer has just shown out of a red suit. Are you really suggesting you bother to 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 Tue Apr 3 01:37:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32FbUe13690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32Fb4t13659 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:05 +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 14k6O1-0000rj-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:37:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:11:54 +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 Todd Zimnoch writes >>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? No idea. That is basically what I was trying to find out by starting this thread. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 01:37:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32FbWt13691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:32 +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 f32Fb6t13663 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:07 +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 14k6O1-0000rk-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:37:03 +0100 Message-ID: <$mpeo9AxPIy6EwkF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:51:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] To Catch A Cheat References: <001d01c0b97c$72a9fc80$be8c69d5@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001d01c0b97c$72a9fc80$be8c69d5@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 >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 :-). Very cheap. :(( -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 01:38:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32FbYG13693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32Fb7t13667 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:09 +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 14k6O3-0000rm-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:37:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:07:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk rhoxolan writes >I do not understand why there is discussion around 12C3 and 12C2. I >compare >12C3 with 64C as a kind of long stop or safety net. Is this not what it >is >for? No, I do not think so. I think in misinformation cases L12C3 should be the norm. Perhaps I should say MI cases where the MI is early in the auction. If the auction goes [as it did over the weekend] 1C P 1D 1S; x P 2C P; 3C ?, where the 1C/1D were Strong club, and the 1D was takeout, but taken as penalty because it was not alerted, it should now be very rare that you do not weight a score if you accept that spades would have been raised to a high level on the previous round. You do not know what would have happened. Without L12C3 you give the NOs the benefit of the doubt, possibly quite considerably changing the scores: with L12C3 you include the various possibilities where the auction can finish. I actually adjusted the 5C= at the table to 40% of 5C= by N/S, + 15% of 3S*-1 by E/W, + 30% of 5D-1 by N/S, + 15% of 3S*= by E/W and the AC changed it to 50% of 5C= by N/S, + 40% of 4D= by N/S, + 10% of 3S*= by E/W In cases that do not involve MI I think L12C3 will be rarer, but my guess is that L12C3 will be used, once people are used to it, in at least 50% of assigned adjusted scores. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 01:38:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32FbYR13692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32Fb5t13661 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:05 +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 14k6Nz-0000ri-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:36:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:10:52 +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: <00cf01c0b8be$7d7cc5c0$0f497ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <00cf01c0b8be$7d7cc5c0$0f497ad5@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: > >> >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. So, what do you consider equity on a deal where declarer is playing in 3NT with eight top tricks, and only one play for a ninth, a two-way finesse? And has equity on the deal changed in any way after he has taken the two-way finesse? If there is an infraction let us say it occurs after this point. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 01:38:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32FbgJ13694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:42 +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-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 f32FbGt13681 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:18 +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 14k6OB-0000ri-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:37:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:10:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 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! >I have never opposed L12C3 in any shape, manner or form. I think it is >a splendid Law, ... >You're probably thinking of Eric Landau. Surely it is difficult to think of Eric Landau and write David Burn? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 01:38:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32Fbno13695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:49 +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 f32FbLt13686 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:37:22 +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 14k6OB-0000rl-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:37:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:19:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling References: <3AC82C5F.A56445A9@comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <3AC82C5F.A56445A9@comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes >A ruling from Polish Division Three >that looked rather trivial to me >but will get to an AC. > >Screens. > >W N E S >2H* p 2S* p >2NT 3D p p >p > > >WE were on the same side of the screen as usual. > >2H opening was alerted on both sides of the screen >and explained as 11-16, 5+-5+ without spades. >2S was alerted on both sides of the screen and >explained as a relay. >2NT was alerted on NE side and explained as "minors". >North tried to show his major two-suiter with the >3D cue-bid. >On the WS side 2NT wasn't alerted, South never asked >its meaning and assumed 3D to be natural. >3D finished -5. South called the TD. > >The ruling was "result stands for both sides". >North-South appealed. > >To me the ruling looks correct and rather obious >[no, I wasn't involved :)] but perhaps I am missing >something (OK, almost correct, IM(H)O a PP should have >been given to WE for the failure to alert). >Comments welcome. Perhaps I am missing something then. Assuming that 2NT showed the minors South was misinformed: he would not have assumed 3D was natural if he had not been misinformed so he was damaged, so should receive redress. Assuming that 2NT does not show the minors, North was misinformed: he would not have bid 3D to show the majors if he had not been misinformed so he was damaged, so should receive redress. what am I missing? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 02:17:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32GHbk13795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 02:17:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA ([192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f32GHUt13791 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 02:17:31 +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 MAA04428; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:17:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA247728242; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:17:22 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:17:17 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: RE: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, john@asimere.com, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:17:16 -0400" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I try to avoid giving my opinion on rulings made in other clubs, invoking the difficulty to judge without all facts gathered on the floor. But I see "horrors", mostly on judgment rulings but some times on book rulings. As John said: "Players want to know". Not so easy. This dicussion list is a proud I meant a "proof"..... funny lapsus... sorry 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 Apr 3 03:22:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32HM6c22797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 03:22:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium (ruthenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f32HLpt22717 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 03:21:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.154.122] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14k81H-0004xP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:21:36 +0100 Message-ID: <005f01c0bb99$4bf965c0$7a9a01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00cf01c0b8be$7d7cc5c0$0f497ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:15:47 +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: > So, what do you consider equity on a deal where declarer is playing in > 3NT with eight top tricks, and only one play for a ninth, a two-way > finesse? At present, the equity in the position is 50% of the score for 3NT making, and 50% of the score for 3NT one down. The equity is the same for both sides. This corresponds to the sense in which the word "equity" is used in backgammon: if a player has a 1 in 3 chance of winning a 1-point game, a 1 in 3 chance of winning a gammon (a 2-point game) and a 1 in 3 chance of losing a 1-point game, then his equity in the position is 1/3*1 + 1/3*2 + 1/3*-1, or plus two thirds of a point. If the game had to be abandoned at this stage, an "equitable" settlement would be for the player to receive 2/3 of the stake for a single point from his opponent. > And has equity on the deal changed in any way after he has > taken the two-way finesse? Yes, the equity is now 100% of the score for 3NT making (if he has guessed right) or 100% of the score for 3NT down one (if he has guessed wrong). Equity is something that may be said to exist in a position at any given point. However, this is to over-simplify (or perhaps to confuse two slightly different meanings of the word "equity"). In the narrow sense, the "equity" in a position corresponds to the mathematical expectations of both sides in that position. But in the broad sense, players have certain "rights" in respect of a deal or a position; whether those rights continue to exist depends on the original position and all the actions taken leading to the position under consideration. I see that I expressed myself poorly when I wrote: 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. an example of the very confusion I have just described. The "equity" in a given position, in terms of all possible outcomes from that position and the probabilities to be assigned to them, can in some cases be determined from the position alone. But there are many other considerations to be taken into account when a TD or an AC uses L12C3 to "do equity", for the term is there used in the broader sense above. > If there is an infraction let us say it > occurs after this point. I am not sure of the relevance of this. However, let us say that an infraction occurs at the very point at which declarer takes his finesse. Suppose, with AJ10 in hand, K32 in dummy, he leads the jack, and his LHO fumbles before contributing a low card. Declarer runs the jack, losing to the queen. Now, it is my view that the score should be adjusted as follows: the defenders receive 100% of the score for 3NT making, since by committing an infraction of this nature, they have forfeited their "equity" in the position. The declarer's side receives some percentage of the score for 3NT making, and a complementary percentage of the score for 3NT one down. Those percentages must be determined by the AC in accordance with their estimate of the likelihood that declarer would have guessed right without the infraction; it is at this point that the "generous weighting" talked about elsewhere might be applied. 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 Apr 3 05:22:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32JMEw08441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 05:22:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32JM9t08437 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 05:22:09 +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 ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:22:41 -0700 Message-ID: <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:21:49 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" < > rhoxolan writes > > >I do not understand why there is discussion around 12C3 and 12C2. I > >compare > >12C3 with 64C as a kind of long stop or safety net. Is this not what it > >is > >for? > > No, I do not think so. I think in misinformation cases L12C3 should > be the norm. Perhaps I should say MI cases where the MI is early in the > auction. > > If the auction goes [as it did over the weekend] 1C P 1D 1S; x P 2C > P; 3C ?, where the 1C/1D were Strong club, and the 1D was takeout, but > taken as penalty because it was not alerted, it should now be very rare > that you do not weight a score if you accept that spades would have been > raised to a high level on the previous round. You do not know what > would have happened. Exactly. And you don't know the probabilities for various possible outcomes either. Until the equity enthusiasts got L12C3 into the 1997 Laws (as an option), the NOS received the most favorable result that was likely absent the irregularity, with no need to divine "what would have happened." And the OS received the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The spirit of L12C3 is nothing new, at least for the NOS. The 1963 and 1975 Laws stated that the NOS was not to receive more matchpoints than "the number required to offset the irregularity." The corollary that the OS adjustment should not be more than enough to offset the irregularity was not included. The OS could be assigned any score from one that merely offsets the irregularity to a complete zero. Feeling that the NOS had a right to the best score they might reasonably have attained absent the infraction, and that the score adjustment for the OS should be more stern and better defined, the current L12C2 was incorporated in 1987. I'm sure a lot of thought and intelligent debate went into that change, which seems to be accepted by most of the world's bridge population. There was no reason to backtrack with L12C3, which goes further than backtracking by (as currently implemented) giving the OS as well as the NOS its "perceived equity" in the deal. > Without L12C3 you give the NOs the benefit of the > doubt, possibly quite considerably changing the scores: with L12C3 you > include the various possibilities where the auction can finish. > > I actually adjusted the 5C= at the table to > > 40% of 5C= by N/S, + > 15% of 3S*-1 by E/W, + > 30% of 5D-1 by N/S, + > 15% of 3S*= by E/W > > and the AC changed it to > > 50% of 5C= by N/S, + > 40% of 4D= by N/S, + > 10% of 3S*= by E/W Same infraction, two very different adjustments by knowledgeable people. Just the sort of thing that we don't want from the Laws. > > In cases that do not involve MI I think L12C3 will be rarer, but my > guess is that L12C3 will be used, once people are used to it, in at > least 50% of assigned adjusted scores. Not in ACBL-land, thankfully. 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 Apr 3 06:20:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32KKbJ08511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 06:20:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f32KKVt08507 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 06:20:32 +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 QAA21839 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:20:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA11165 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:20:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:20:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104022020.QAA11165@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: David Stevenson >, I would not mind a rule > that allows you to look at the CC all the time, and we just deal with UI > as it arises. Based on the Lille interpretation, I thought the above essentially described the current rules: looking at the CC other than at one's own turn is neither legal nor illegal. But if it creates UI or violates L73B1, then we deal with the violations in the usual way. Grattan's interpretation (and apparently David's) of the Lille interpretation is different, but I'm not sure the difference changes the outcome of most practical rulings. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 06:32:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32KW2P08529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 06:32:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32KVut08525 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 06:31:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32Dgrw03989 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:42:53 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:37:33 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3AC82C5F.A56445A9@comarch.pl> <3AC83DD6.984F3140@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01040213425300.03963@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 02 Apr 2001, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <3AC83DD6.984F3140@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> A ruling from Polish Division Three > >> that looked rather trivial to me > >> but will get to an AC. > >> > >> Screens. > >> > >> W N E S > >> 2H* p 2S* p > >> 2NT 3D p p > >> p > >> (2H showing 5-5 without spades, 2S relay, 2NT not alerted to S showed both minors, N intended 3D as majors.) > >The ruling seems correct to me to, it seems strange not to > >assume that 2NT does not show one of the three possible > >2-suiters, and to ask which one it is. > > > >But perhaps South did not receive enough of an alert over > >2He and 2Sp. > >But I also believe South was asleep. > > > Hang on guys. If south had known that 2N shows the minors, and he and > his partner have some sort of "unusual vs unusual" agreement then would > he have passed 3D? Why can't South assume that 2N shows H and C or an > entirely different hand and that partner just picked a spot to play. South knows that there has been a failure to alert, whatever 2NT means; while it could show hearts and clubs, he cannot assume that meaning without asking, whether or not there has been an alert. > South *has* been mis-informed. Whether I adjust would depend on what he > said when I talked to him. I don't see how he could claim misinformation from the failure to alert. An unalerted 2NT on this sequence would have to be natural, and West cannot have a NT-type 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 Tue Apr 3 07:06:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32L5lU08583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:05:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin5.bigpond.com (juicer02.bigpond.com [139.134.6.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f32L5ht08579 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:05:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.54]) by mailin5.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GB6O5R00.3LD for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:10:39 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-176.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.176]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Fumigated-MailRouter V2.9c 11/15358579); 03 Apr 2001 07:05:08 Message-ID: <00e901c0bbb8$8cf336e0$b0d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:04:04 +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 Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Screens. > >W N E S >2H* p 2S* p >2NT 3D p p >p > >2H opening was alerted on both sides of the screen >and explained as 11-16, 5+-5+ without spades. >2S was alerted on both sides of the screen and >explained as a relay. >2NT was alerted on NE side and explained as "minors". >North tried to show his major two-suiter with the >3D cue-bid. >On the WS side 2NT wasn't alerted, South never asked >its meaning and assumed 3D to be natural. >3D finished -5. South called the TD. > >The ruling was "result stands for both sides". >North-South appealed. > >To me the ruling looks correct and rather obious >[no, I wasn't involved :)] but perhaps I am missing >something (OK, almost correct, IM(H)O a PP should >have been given to WE for the failure to alert). >Comments welcome. I'm another person who thinks NS seem to have been damaged, and that an adjustment is appropriate. Presumably Konrad's heading means that because South had already been told that West had a 5/5 two-suiter of some sort, South can infer that the 2NT bid must be Alertable since it cannot be natural. However, if 2NT really were not alertable, then 2NT surely shows the same meaning as 2H had shown, rather than a specific subset thereof. Thus West still could have hearts and clubs and 3D could be natural. Thus the missed Alert of 2NT caused the damage. South did do enough to protect himself. West's failure to alert caused the damage, unless Poland's alerting rules are so unusual that it was East's Alert which was an infraction, which seems very unlikely to be the case. 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 Tue Apr 3 07:53:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32Lr3N22605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:53:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32Lqut22564 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:52:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f32Lqnn15758 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:52:49 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:52 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling 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: > Perhaps I am missing something then. Assuming that 2NT showed the > minors South was misinformed: he would not have assumed 3D was natural > if he had not been misinformed so he was damaged, so should receive > redress. South had already been told that West was 55 two suiter not spades and that the 2S by East was a relay. 2N is almost certainly not natural (regardless of whether it was alerted) and South could have asked, and found out, that it was for the minors (or if not clear MI). It seems reasonable to ask whether South's duty to protect himself against a missed alert applies in this situation. The answer looks like a judgement call based on South's ability/experience. Personally I think it could be a double shot trying to take advantage of what he knows to be a missing alert. 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 Apr 3 08:02:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32M21v25802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:02:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32M1tt25765 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:01:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32FCn804030 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:12:49 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: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:11:13 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01040215124901.03963@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 02 Apr 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst writes > >You mean East really *doesn't* have a count of the hand at trick 10? > > C'mon, John, htis is David here. Stick the honesty chip back into > your brain. > > There are two red aces out. You need to find the one in pd's hand. > Declarer has just shown out of a red suit. Are you really suggesting > you bother to count? And, equally important, have you ever miscounted a hand on defense? If your count marks declarer with at least two diamonds but he discards a heart on the diamonds, do you assume that he revoked and still holds two 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 Tue Apr 3 08:11:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32MBZ329183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:11:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32MBSt29152 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:11:29 +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 PAA23490; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:11:22 -0700 Message-Id: <200104022211.PAA23490@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Apr 2001 13:37:33 -0000." <01040213425300.03963@psa836> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 15:11:21 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > I don't see how he could claim misinformation from the failure to > alert. An unalerted 2NT on this sequence would have to be natural, and > West cannot have a NT-type hand. I'm not so sure 2NT would "have" to be natural. However, I think the principle is basically correct. That is, a failure to Alert carries the information that the bid is "standard" or "natural"; however, if there is no such thing as "standard" in a particular auction, and "natural" is logically impossible, then the "information" conveyed by the failure to Alert is no information at all, and therefore misinformation can't be claimed. Another example: West East 2D(1) 2NT(2) 3D(3) (1) Alerted: Precision, showing 11-15 HCP and one of several 3-suited distributions including a singleton or void in diamonds (2) Alerted: asks for further description (3) Not alerted; shows 4=3=1=5 Although it's a violation not to alert 3D, I think anyone who claims damage from misinformation is a looney. The failure to alert conveys no information since there is no possible nonalertable meaning of 3D here, and nothing that could be considered "standard". At least that would be the case in America; I can imagine that there might be places in the world where Precision is so common that there is an accepted "standard" meaning of 3D in this sequence. That may be the case in Konrad's example. Perhaps 2NT to show both minors could be considered "standard" in his part of the world. Or maybe 2NT to show hearts and clubs would be "standard" somewhere (probably only in a few places in Antarctica, though). Not being from there (i.e. from Poland) (OK, I'm also not from Antarctica), I have no idea. Of course, even if "minors" were the standard meaning of 2NT, N-S probably couldn't claim damage if North were bidding 3D on a long suit. We haven't been shown the actual hands, so I don't know if this is the case. In any case, an argument such as "E-W didn't alert 2NT, therefore I assumed it was hearts/clubs since I'm holding long diamonds" would not fly. -- 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 Apr 3 08:15:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32MFep00674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:15:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f32MFYt00640 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:15:34 +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 SAA26228 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:15:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA11262 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:15:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:15:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104022215.SAA11262@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: "David Burn" > Equity is something that may be said to exist in a position at > any given point. However, this is to over-simplify (or perhaps to > confuse two slightly different meanings of the word "equity"). In the > narrow sense, the "equity" in a position corresponds to the mathematical > expectations of both sides in that position. But in the broad sense, > players have certain "rights" in respect of a deal or a position; > whether those rights continue to exist depends on the original position > and all the actions taken leading to the position under consideration. If I understand this correctly, David is saying that the broad definition of equity includes legal considerations as well as the position itself. For example, one player may have received UI and have his actions restricted as a result or may even be obliged by law to pass. 'Equity' surely has to include such considerations. Another factor is how the play has gone up to this point. If a player has given away information, for example by showing out of a suit, equity must include the knowledge given to all parties. A circular but perhaps still useful definition is "the score you would assign if you were forced to assign a score at that instant." Aside from the definition, there is a real difference of opinion: > Suppose, with AJ10 in hand, K32 in dummy, he leads the jack, and his LHO > fumbles before contributing a low card. Declarer runs the jack, losing > to the queen. > > Now, it is my view that the score should be adjusted as follows: the > defenders receive 100% of the score for 3NT making, since by committing > an infraction of this nature, they have forfeited their "equity" in the > position. I agree so far. > The declarer's side receives some percentage of the score for > 3NT making, and a complementary percentage of the score for 3NT one > down. This, however, while entirely reasonable, seems wrong to me. I'd rather see declarer receive 3NT=. The defender has made an ordinary bridge mistake, and in my view, declarer is entitled to profit just as from any other bridge mistake. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 08:31:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32MVbb06290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:31:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32MVUt06256 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:31:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (pppl025.moscow.com [199.245.242.25]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA48343 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:31:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010402143038.0164c378@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 14:30:47 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:37 PM 4/2/01 +0000, you wrote: >On Mon, 02 Apr 2001, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> In article <3AC83DD6.984F3140@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael >> writes >> >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> >> A ruling from Polish Division Three >> >> that looked rather trivial to me >> >> but will get to an AC. >> >> >> >> Screens. >> >> >> >> W N E S >> >> 2H* p 2S* p >> >> 2NT 3D p p >> >> p >> >> > >(2H showing 5-5 without spades, 2S relay, 2NT not alerted to S showed >both minors, N intended 3D as majors.) > >> >The ruling seems correct to me to, it seems strange not to >> >assume that 2NT does not show one of the three possible >> >2-suiters, and to ask which one it is. >> > >> >But perhaps South did not receive enough of an alert over >> >2He and 2Sp. >> >But I also believe South was asleep. >> > >> Hang on guys. If south had known that 2N shows the minors, and he and >> his partner have some sort of "unusual vs unusual" agreement then would >> he have passed 3D? Why can't South assume that 2N shows H and C or an >> entirely different hand and that partner just picked a spot to play. > >South knows that there has been a failure to alert, whatever 2NT means; >while it could show hearts and clubs, he cannot assume that meaning >without asking, whether or not there has been an alert. > >> South *has* been mis-informed. Whether I adjust would depend on what he >> said when I talked to him. > >I don't see how he could claim misinformation from the failure to >alert. An unalerted 2NT on this sequence would have to be natural, and >West cannot have a NT-type hand. This is a misunderstanding of what natural means. Natural is always in context. Say the bidding goes (with the opponents natural) S. N. 1H 1NT(forcing) 2C 2D(more than a minimum) 3C 3H 3NT If South has Kx,QJxxx,Q,AQJxx, 3NT is natural because in context this is a notrumpish hand. With the exact same hand West in the given auction could bid a "natural" 2NT. Furthermore, 2NT showing any 5-5-2-1 is a "natural" bid (after all the original bid show two suit each 5 OR MORE). In view of the complex system E/W have a responsibility to be particularly careful with their alerts and explanations. Finally South was under no obligation to ask if he had an automatic pass over a natural 3D. In fact he should not ask if he has nothing to think about, asking with the purpose of making the opponents think that you have multiple options is unethical. E/W were damaged and should get redress. Scott -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 08:33:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32MX8N06802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:33:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f32MX2t06768 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:33:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.228.198] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14kCsb-0005pt-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 02 Apr 2001 23:32:57 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c0bbc4$cae89c40$c6e47ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <3AC82C5F.A56445A9@comarch.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:32:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" 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 Konrad wrote: W N E S 2H* p 2S** p 2NT*** 3D p p p *two-suiter, not spades **relay ***minors [snip] On the WS side 2NT wasn't alerted, South never asked its meaning and assumed 3D to be natural. 3D finished -5. South called the TD. The ruling was "result stands for both sides". North-South appealed. This isn't really answerable except in the context of Polish bidding methods and alerting regulations. South knew that 2NT was not "natural" because he had already been told what 2H was. He may have been caused to forget this by the failure to alert 2NT (perhaps he confused the situation with some kind of Multi 2H opening), but one would say that he was at least somewhat negligent in failing to check which two suits West had shown before deciding that North's 3D was also natural. Whether his negligence is such as to deny him redress is, however, another matter. Opening bids of this kind, variant of Wilkosz, are very much more common in Poland than they are here or in the USA. Even so, I do not know whether I would regard a Polish player who messed up this sequence and then claimed damage as harshly as I would regard an Englishman who claimed to have been damaged because his opponent did not alert a 2C response to 1NT. Certainly, I would impose a small penalty on the non-alerters, but I would have to talk to the players and be familiar with the circumstances before I could say whether to give redress to the claimants. My feeling on the evidence so far is that I would not do so, but "it is a capital mistake to theorise without data". 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 Apr 3 09:17:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32NH6x22188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:17:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32NGxt22148 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:16:59 +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 14kDZ8-000Jo5-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:16:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:15:40 +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 >>>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? > > C'mon, John, htis is David here. Stick the honesty chip back into >your brain. > > There are two red aces out. You need to find the one in pd's hand. >Declarer has just shown out of a red suit. Are you really suggesting >you bother to count? > OK, give up, four tricks -- 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 Apr 3 09:36:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f32NaIw28954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:36:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f32NaBt28912 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:36:12 +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 f32NXab07095 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 19:33:36 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200104022020.QAA11165@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200104022020.QAA11165@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 19:35:30 -0400 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 Steve Willner writes: >Based on the Lille interpretation, I thought the above essentially described >the current rules: looking at the CC other than at one's own turn is neither >legal nor illegal. But if it creates UI or violates L73B1, then we >deal with the >violations in the usual way. "If it creates UI". How do we know? 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/AwUBOskM672UW3au93vOEQLvgQCfa4eIVRD+pvdnLhnISEWu5htc9c4AoMkE bE0TijANoRRQJl4/n/+qthy5 =GSHo -----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 Apr 3 10:13:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f330D3P11949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:13:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f330Cvt11914 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:12:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010403001254.XAWU27186.femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:12:54 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: I was wrong Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:16:52 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010402074233.00abcd70@127.0.0.1> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >The ACBL might say that this is not true, that they have made great >strides over the past few years in addressing the situation. But the >fact is that they have done so, apparently with some fair amount of >success, only for their premier 3-times-a-year NABCs; Agree wholeheartedly... their effort has >yet to have any significant effect at the Regional and Sectional >tournaments that make up the vast majority of the ACBL tournament calendar. And this will only get worse now that non-NABC appeals are handled only by Directors. Now the players that would be suitable AC members for Regional and Sectional level events are not getting any experience serving on Committtees at NABCs with more experienced AC members.... 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 Tue Apr 3 17:36:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f337YeZ26572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:34:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f337YVt26524 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:34:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-44-112.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.44.112]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f337YMH24223 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:34:22 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003a01c0bc10$6441b3e0$702c7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3AC82C5F.A56445A9@comarch.pl> <001301c0bbc4$cae89c40$c6e47ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 06:34:14 +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 "Great actions are not always true sons Of great and mighty resolutions." - Samuel Butler ('Hudibras', 1663) + + + ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: BLML Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling > Konrad wrote: > > W N E S > 2H* p 2S** p > 2NT*** 3D p p > p > > *two-suiter, not spades **relay ***minors > > [snip] > >. My feeling on the evidence so far is that I > would not do so, but "it is a capital mistake > to theorise without data". > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Whilst I agree in general with what David is saying, I am left in the dark as to what was meant by 'relay'. In an appeal committee I would be following up this question. It is almost certain that the response would be predetermined - i.e. would either be required to show more concerning the opener's hand, or would be passive (as 2NT might be) in order that responder may show more about his hand, possibly name a final contract. I do not feel great sympathy for a player who hears a conventional reply to a conventional opener and assumes the next bid is natural because it was not alerted. But, as David implies, I ought to listen to the arguments (a course of action that can be recommended to appeal committees.) ~ 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 Apr 3 17:58:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f337uiH29349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:56:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f337udt29345 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:56:40 +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, 3 Apr 2001 00:56:46 -0700 Message-ID: <002501c0bc13$94ac6360$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200103292032.MAA06416@mailhub.irvine.com> <001f01c0b8a8$04588320$0f497ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:49:20 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > > Just to make it clear, it is my belief that you may not look at a CC > when it is an oppo's or partner's turn to call or play. But that does > not mean I think this is best - I do not. Best, in my view, is that you > should not be allowed to look at a CC when it is LHO's or partner's turn > to call or play: you should have a perfect right to look at a CC when it > is RHO's or your turn to play. Grattan made the point that partner still has bidding rights when it is the next hand's turn to bid. For instance, looking at the CC might be used to call attention to MI (e.g., an Alert mistake) for partner's benefit, at a time when hir last call could be changed. > This also partly solves the problems of partner doing something which > depends for alerting/explaining on an opponents' call: the moment > partner makes his call you may legitimately look at the CC. > > Furthermore, while I think the above is best, I would not mind a rule > that allows you to look at the CC all the time, and we just deal with UI > as it arises. In the days before they were Alertable, I made one of my strong jump overcalls, LHO glanced at my CC and passed, and partner bid. As RHO was considering his next call, LHO (with a yarborough) picked up my convention card to have another look--for partner's benefit, obviously. Opener then also took a look, and passed. We can't have that, and I don't think I'd have a provable case before an AC. A declarer should be able to look at the opposing CC at any time. Since that is universal practice, the Law should be revised to make it okay. 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 Apr 3 17:58:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f337vC529357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:57:12 +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-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 f337v5t29353 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:57:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-157.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.157]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f337uwg00250 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:56:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AC8CB3E.F31E72FB@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 20:55:58 +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] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling References: <3AC82C5F.A56445A9@comarch.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Konrad Ciborowski writes > > >A ruling from Polish Division Three > >that looked rather trivial to me > >but will get to an AC. > > > >Screens. > > > >W N E S > >2H* p 2S* p > >2NT 3D p p > >p > > > > > >WE were on the same side of the screen as usual. > > > >2H opening was alerted on both sides of the screen > >and explained as 11-16, 5+-5+ without spades. > >2S was alerted on both sides of the screen and > >explained as a relay. > >2NT was alerted on NE side and explained as "minors". > >North tried to show his major two-suiter with the > >3D cue-bid. > >On the WS side 2NT wasn't alerted, South never asked > >its meaning and assumed 3D to be natural. > >3D finished -5. South called the TD. > > > >The ruling was "result stands for both sides". > >North-South appealed. > > > >To me the ruling looks correct and rather obious > >[no, I wasn't involved :)] but perhaps I am missing > >something (OK, almost correct, IM(H)O a PP should have > >been given to WE for the failure to alert). > >Comments welcome. > > Perhaps I am missing something then. Assuming that 2NT showed the > minors South was misinformed: he would not have assumed 3D was natural > if he had not been misinformed so he was damaged, so should receive > redress. Assuming that 2NT does not show the minors, North was > misinformed: he would not have bid 3D to show the majors if he had not > been misinformed so he was damaged, so should receive redress. what am > I missing? > What you are missing is that it is very unlikely that 2NT would have a non-alertable meaning. Also that it is very unlikely that a Polish pair might think he understands the bidding of any other Polish pair, and thus that the "presumed" meaning of 2NT as being natural, since non-alerted si ridiculous. South should have asked what 2NT meant, regardless of there being an alert or not. Then South would not have passed. Since he did pass, he cannot ascribe that to the non-alert. I am presuming of course that the non-alert is the only infraction. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 18:48:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f338lh529440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:47:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f338lYt29432 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:47:35 +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 14kMTE-000NhN-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:47:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 02:28:48 +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: <00cf01c0b8be$7d7cc5c0$0f497ad5@pbncomputer> <005f01c0bb99$4bf965c0$7a9a01d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <005f01c0bb99$4bf965c0$7a9a01d5@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: >> If there is an infraction let us say it >> occurs after this point. >I am not sure of the relevance of this. The relevance of this is that some people have said there is an equity in the deal, and it exists. Say, for example declarer has nine tricks if played and defended competently. Owing to incompetence by the defence [the effect of my opening lead, for example], declarer is *now* going to make ten tricks. *Now* an infraction occurs. Suppose someone hesitates and a safe way of making eleven tricks appears - only safe because of the hesitation. Declarer goes for it, and makes eight tricks. In general, our first aim in adjustment situations is to restore equity. Is equity the nine tricks at the start of the hand, or the ten tricks that appeared part way through? While I think the answer obvious, I am not sure everyone does, so if you would like to give us your opinion, we can see whether we are of one mind. For example, I gave an ending earlier, and was told that it was inadequate, because equity could not be discovered without seeing the whole hand. Do you consider this a reasonable complaint? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 18:48:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f338lix29441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:47:44 +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-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 f338lZt29433 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:47:36 +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 14kMTG-000NhX-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:47:32 +0100 Message-ID: <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 02:36:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$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" < >The spirit of L12C3 is nothing new, at least for the NOS. The 1963 and >1975 Laws stated that the NOS was not to receive more matchpoints than >"the number required to offset the irregularity." The corollary that the >OS adjustment should not be more than enough to offset the irregularity >was not included. The OS could be assigned any score from one that >merely offsets the irregularity to a complete zero. > >Feeling that the NOS had a right to the best score they might reasonably >have attained absent the infraction, and that the score adjustment for >the OS should be more stern and better defined, the current L12C2 was >incorporated in 1987. I'm sure a lot of thought and intelligent debate >went into that change, which seems to be accepted by most of the world's >bridge population. There was no reason to backtrack with L12C3, which >goes further than backtracking by (as currently implemented) giving the >OS as well as the NOS its "perceived equity" in the deal. Of course it is reasonable to disagree with the implementation of L12C3, but your given reasons are becoming less reasonable with each post. The fact that L12C2 was adopted in 1987, and went a whole year before being weakened by the WBFLC is hardly an argument it was right. >Same infraction, two very different adjustments by knowledgeable people. >Just the sort of thing that we don't want from the Laws. You know perfectly well that in ACBL-land two different adjustments are quite common by TDs and ACs, and that two different adjustments would be given by two different ACs. You talk as though it only happens with L12C3, when you know perfectly well [just by reading the case- books, and also by your own comments over the years] that it happens with L12C2. The difference is that this is considerably less fair for the players involved when it happens under L12C2. >> In cases that do not involve MI I think L12C3 will be rarer, but my >> guess is that L12C3 will be used, once people are used to it, in at >> least 50% of assigned adjusted scores. > >Not in ACBL-land, thankfully. While it is reasonable to object to it, the reasons you give in this post are actually reasons in favour of implementing L12C3. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 20:17:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33AGT006799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:16:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin3.email.bigpond.com (juicer24.bigpond.com [139.134.6.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f33AGNt06773 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:16:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.57]) by mailin3.email.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GB7ORI00.7NN for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:21:18 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-95.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.95]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Shocking-MailRouter V2.9c 3/11404067); 03 Apr 2001 20:15:50 Message-ID: <011301c0bc27$0065ec80$5fd936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:15:25 +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 Warning - long post which IMO throws new light on the problem >Herman de Wael wrote: >thus that the "presumed" meaning of 2NT as being natural, >since non-alerted is ridiculous. The concept of 2NT being "natural" i.e. 'showing a stopper-like spade holding ' may not be widely played in this particular auction, but it is an intelligent treatment rather than a ridiculous one, AS LONG AS 2S includes strong hands (i.e if 3NT is a possible contract) ... which leads to ..... Konrad Ciborowski had written: >>>2S was alerted on both sides of the screen and >>>explained as a relay. If, as is likely, 2H - 2NT is a strong, game-going relay and 2S was a weaker relay heading towards partscore (thus allowing 2NT safely to have a non-natural meaning), then 2S was grossly and inadequately misexplained on both sides of the screen. Konrad, was this the case? What would 2NT have meant in response to 2H? If so, the misexplanation of 2S has contributed to South's failure to ask the meaning of 2NT, making it even clearer that poor South is entitled to an adjusted score rather than having to put up with a lot of know-it-alls who know that South should have divined that he should have asked the meaning of the unalerted 2NT. These know-it-alls seem to expect South to play near-perfect bridge, picking up all the inferences from EW's bidding methods which might be unfamiliar to him, and perhaps they also expect South to know EW's bidding system better (perhaps) than the non-alerting West. West fails to alert. It seems to me that EW both misexplained an earlier bid too. South is confronted by an unusual auction and is meant to decipher exactly which infraction West committed - from South's point of view, perhaps the error was that the 2H bid includes 20-21 balanced and 2NT was not alertable. Is South meant to help a possibly-confused West out by giving West a chance to write down what's really happening (remember that written explanantions are required with screens)? Can't South simply play bridge? Does South have to draw the right conclusions about the reason for the opponent's infraction? Just because we now know (in retrospect) that West's 2NT did show one of the suit combinations (which it didn't have to; it could be playable for 3C to show "clubs and a red suit"), do we have to present our biased position of knowing what happened to South? Must we tell South that we who now know what happened say that at the time South should with less information available have drawn the same conclusion which is obvious to those of us who now have all the time in the world to examine the hand? Is South allowed to be human? Another important point, which is boringly routine to anyone who has ever made a ruling involving screens, but may be new to those not familiar with screens, is that South received the tray after East's Pass. This well-known phenomenon destroys the natural timing of bridge. In normal bridge, South sees his partner's call, then sees RHO's call, then makes his call. With screens, South has had less time to study the auction, and is far more likely to pass 3D before he has had the time to catch on to all the ramifications of the auction, due to the artificial timing created by screens. This makes it even clearer to award an adjusted score. NPCs should note that when in doubt one should place one's more impulsive bidders EW to protect against this phenomenon. Scott Cardell's post has convinced me that South is being treated meanly by a lot of the commentators, who IMO are living in a theoretical rather than a practical world by putting all this pressure on South to be EW's alerting assistant. Herman de Wael wrote: >South should have asked what 2NT meant, regardless >of there being an alert or not. Herman, don't you find bridge slow enough when you play with screens? Do you really have to insist that players potentially waste time asking the meaning of unalerted bids? Do you also require that South re-check the meaning of 2H just in case it included a balanced 20-21 which either: - West omitted to mention last time, or - South missed in the scrawl earlier, or Has West turned up with a balanced 20-21, we in retrospect would have looked at this problem by stating "when West doesn't alert 2NT, South obviously will realise that West left out the 20-21 meaning of 2H". There were so many possibilities at the time of South's failure to ask about 2NT. For space reasons, I have discussed only some of them. We have the problem of being biased observers in that we see the problem later and we are presented with more data than South had at his disposal. By the way, when Screen Regulations are written, do the regulators usually allow players to look at the opponents' CC when the bidding tray is on the other side of the screen? Peter Gill Australia. (last question was to test to see if anyone is still reading) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 20:28:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33ASJ310991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:28:19 +1000 (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 f33ASCt10954 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:28:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.20.158] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14kO2g-0006WW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:28:07 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c0bc28$b1ea2600$9e14073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00cf01c0b8be$7d7cc5c0$0f497ad5@pbncomputer> <005f01c0bb99$4bf965c0$7a9a01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:27:31 +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 relevance of this is that some people have said there is an equity > in the deal, and it exists. Say, for example declarer has nine tricks > if played and defended competently. This is the narrow sense of "equity" of which I spoke; it varies as the bidding and play develop, just as the "equity" in a backgammon position changes with each throw of the dice. It is not the "equity" that is spoken of in L12C3, where the word is used in the broader sense of "right" under the laws. > Owing to incompetence by the defence [the effect of my opening lead, > for example], declarer is *now* going to make ten tricks. The equity in the position has thus changed with the lead. It might help if instead of this term "equity", we used the (probably more exact) term "expectation" in order to make the distinction. > *Now* an infraction occurs. Suppose someone hesitates and a safe way > of making eleven tricks appears - only safe because of the hesitation. > Declarer goes for it, and makes eight tricks. > > In general, our first aim in adjustment situations is to restore > equity. Yes, but you are not trying to restore the kind of equity that I have now termed "expectation"; you are trying to "do equity" in the broader sense of ensuring that a non-offending side does not lose any right it may have had in the deal. > Is equity the nine tricks at the start of the hand, or the ten > tricks that appeared part way through? A point was reached at which the expectation was ten tricks for declarer; that is what should be restored to him, for that was his right. > For example, I gave an ending earlier, and was told that it was > inadequate, because equity could not be discovered without seeing the > whole hand. Do you consider this a reasonable complaint? Yes. Here, we are discussing equity in the broader sense of L12C3. The expectation in the position you gave was that, had declarer not revoked but ducked, the defenders would have taken all tricks; when he revoked instead, the defenders were not given adequate redress under the revoke laws. An equitable adjustment might then be for all tricks to be awarded to the defenders. But before this could happen, the question needed to be determined: was East's defence sufficiently egregious for his side to lose the right they had to four tricks? In order to see this, one needs to know how reasonable it was for the defender to imagine his side playing with a deck containing ten diamonds and sixteen hearts. One would also need to examine the defender. It is highly probable that I would take the same view as you did - if declarer shows out of a suit, a defender does not lose rights by playing partner for the remaining cards in the suit despite the fact that, by simple bridge logic, he "cannot" have them. But it would be necessary to study the bidding and play, and to hear evidence, before making up one's mind finally on the issue. 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 Apr 3 23:05:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33D4gI22376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:04:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f33D4Zt22372 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:04:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-80-233.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.80.233]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f33D3rH25508; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:03:53 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000401c0bc3e$9d094ac0$e950063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Florida vacation Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:09:53 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:05:07 +1000 (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 14kQUW-000ILV-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:05:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:22:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC References: <200103292032.MAA06416@mailhub.irvine.com> <001f01c0b8a8$04588320$0f497ad5@pbncomputer> <002501c0bc13$94ac6360$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002501c0bc13$94ac6360$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" >> Just to make it clear, it is my belief that you may not look at a CC >> when it is an oppo's or partner's turn to call or play. But that does >> not mean I think this is best - I do not. Best, in my view, is that >you >> should not be allowed to look at a CC when it is LHO's or partner's >turn >> to call or play: you should have a perfect right to look at a CC when >it >> is RHO's or your turn to play. >Grattan made the point that partner still has bidding rights when it is >the next hand's turn to bid. For instance, looking at the CC might be >used to call attention to MI (e.g., an Alert mistake) for partner's >benefit, at a time when hir last call could be changed. This does not alter my view one iota. Looking at oppo's CC at *any* time may give pd UI. It is just a question of the best compromise between practicality and cutting UI down to manageable proportions, and I still prefer my rule: once pd has called or played you may look at the CC until you have called or played. >A declarer should be able to look at the opposing CC at any time. Since >that is universal practice, the Law should be revised to make it okay. There are possible abuses with declarer looking at the CC, but I agree this is acceptable: declarer to look at any time. Also, though I believe it is acceptable now to look between hands, it would be better spelt out in the laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 3 23:05:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33D5Eq22388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:05:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f33D56t22381 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:05:07 +1000 (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 14kQUW-000ILY-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:05:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:52:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] MI from Japan MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Short Round Robin teams A flight Bd. 3 S:K Dlr:South H:AQJ95 Vul:EW D:K1082 C:KQ3 S:A8653 S:Q1092 H:863 H:2 D:A743 D:65 C:6 C:AJ8752 S:J74 H:K1074 D:QJ9 C:1094 W N E S P P 1H P 2H P 2NT* P 3H** P 4H all pass *Heart length & points asking, not alerted **4 card Hearts, minimum Result: 4H by N down1, EW+50 At the end of auction, the Director was called and was told that 2NT were not alerted. He instructed the players to continue the play. After the hand was finished, E/W called the director and claimed that had they been alerted 2NT properly, East could have doubled 2NT for takeout and they could reach 4S. 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 Tue Apr 3 23:22:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33DMh922656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:22:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f33DMbt22652 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:22:38 +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 f33DMWx52869 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:22:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010403083330.00b18330@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, 03 Apr 2001 09:23:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? In-Reply-To: References: <005f01c0bb99$4bf965c0$7a9a01d5@pbncomputer> <00cf01c0b8be$7d7cc5c0$0f497ad5@pbncomputer> <005f01c0bb99$4bf965c0$7a9a01d5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:28 PM 4/2/01, David wrote: > The relevance of this is that some people have said there is an equity >in the deal, and it exists. Say, for example declarer has nine tricks >if played and defended competently. > > Owing to incompetence by the defence [the effect of my opening lead, >for example], declarer is *now* going to make ten tricks. > > *Now* an infraction occurs. Suppose someone hesitates and a safe way >of making eleven tricks appears - only safe because of the hesitation. >Declarer goes for it, and makes eight tricks. > > In general, our first aim in adjustment situations is to restore >equity. Is equity the nine tricks at the start of the hand, or the ten >tricks that appeared part way through? > > While I think the answer obvious, I am not sure everyone does, so if >you would like to give us your opinion, we can see whether we are of one >mind. Equity at the point of the infraction is 10 tricks. Equity is affected by the play prior to the infraction, and includes a trick which may have been "gained" "owing to incompetence by the defence", or a good guess by declarer, or whatever else has happened *in the play*. I would agree with David that this is obvious. Now suppose that declarer had nine tricks to start with but the "incompetence by the defense" wasn't a lead that cost a trick, but rather a harmless revoke (one having no effect on the subsequent play). The defense lost the revoke trick but won a subsequent trick. Absent the infraction, declarer would actually take nine tricks but would be scored as having taken 10 after application of the revoke penalty. This is, I believe, the scenario we are concerned with. My view is that equity at the time of the infraction is nine tricks, not 10, and the adjustment to rectify the infraction should use that as its basis. Then the revoke penalty should be applied, "after play ceases", and the adjusted score further adjusted to account for the revoke, just as it would have been had there been no infraction and the score (at the point at which "play ceases") had not been an adjusted one. Of course, equity doesn't change due to the revoke in the above scenario only because I stipulated that it was "harmless". The actual effect of the revoke on equity is the adjustment we would give for the revoke if L64A did not exist and the procedure for dealing with the revoke was determined solely by L64C. 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 Apr 3 23:52:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33DqD102860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:52:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f33Dq6t02825 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:52:07 +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 f33Dq2N71483 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:52:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010403093016.00a93680@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, 03 Apr 2001 09:51:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong In-Reply-To: <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$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 09:36 PM 4/2/01, David wrote: >Marvin L. French writes > > >Same infraction, two very different adjustments by knowledgeable people. > >Just the sort of thing that we don't want from the Laws. > > You know perfectly well that in ACBL-land two different adjustments >are quite common by TDs and ACs, and that two different adjustments >would be given by two different ACs. You talk as though it only happens >with L12C3, when you know perfectly well [just by reading the case- >books, and also by your own comments over the years] that it happens >with L12C2. The difference is that this is considerably less fair for >the players involved when it happens under L12C2. This makes it sound like the L12C3 election determines whether we adjust under L12C2 or L12C3, but that is not true. We *always* adjust under L12C2; the election determines whether may go on to "vary [the] assigned adjusted score" (determined by having already applied L12C2) under L12C3. Thus ruling where L12C3 applies must perforce require at least as many decisions and determinations as ruling where it does not. If the determinations leading to the L12C2 result are wrong, and produce a wrong adjustment, we have no reason to think that the same committee, using L12C3 to "fine tune" their original mis-adjustment under L12C2, will make matters better rather than worse. So even if we were to reach the nirvana in which every committee applied L12C2 in exactly the same way, introducing L12C3 would give them the opportunity to introduce new inconsistencies. And I would argue further that we have a far better chance to provide clear guidelines and educate our committees to apply them correctly if we stick to the interpretation of "likely" and "at all probable" and don't have to worry about doing the same for "do equity", which is a lot more nebulous a concept. I believe Marv is saying that ACBL ACs must learn to walk before we try to teach them how to run. 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 Apr 4 00:37:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33EXDw09564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:33:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f33EX8t09560 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:33:08 +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 f33EX4N74324 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010403102240.00b1b920@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, 03 Apr 2001 10:34:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan 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 07:52 AM 4/3/01, David wrote: >Short Round Robin teams A flight > >Bd. 3 S:K >Dlr:South H:AQJ95 >Vul:EW D:K1082 > C:KQ3 >S:A8653 S:Q1092 >H:863 H:2 >D:A743 D:65 >C:6 C:AJ8752 > S:J74 > H:K1074 > D:QJ9 > C:1094 > > W N E S > P > P 1H P 2H > P 2NT* P 3H** > P 4H all pass > >*Heart length & points asking, not alerted >**4 card Hearts, minimum >Result: 4H by N down1, EW+50 > > At the end of auction, the Director was called and was told that 2NT >were not alerted. He instructed the players to continue the play. After >the hand was finished, E/W called the director and claimed that had they >been alerted 2NT properly, East could have doubled 2NT for takeout and >they could reach 4S. > > Well? Whatever 2NT was, it presumably showed a hand willing to go beyond 2H in a non-comptetitive auction, i.e. at least a game try. A natural 2NT call would show the same, albeit encompassing a somewhat different set of hands. Its not at all clear that doubling 2NT would be any more attractive given the actual meaning of 2NT than it would be if 2NT were a natural game try. East has a fair amount of work to do to convince me that it is "likely" (or even "at all probable") that he would have doubled 2NT had he been properly alerted. 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 Apr 4 01:23:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33FMrl25906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:22:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f33FMkt25868 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:22:47 +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 14kSdh-000H9D-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:22:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:10:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong References: <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010403093016.00a93680@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010403093016.00a93680@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 09:36 PM 4/2/01, David wrote: > >>Marvin L. French writes >> >> >Same infraction, two very different adjustments by knowledgeable people. >> >Just the sort of thing that we don't want from the Laws. >> >> You know perfectly well that in ACBL-land two different adjustments >>are quite common by TDs and ACs, and that two different adjustments >>would be given by two different ACs. You talk as though it only happens >>with L12C3, when you know perfectly well [just by reading the case- >>books, and also by your own comments over the years] that it happens >>with L12C2. The difference is that this is considerably less fair for >>the players involved when it happens under L12C2. > >This makes it sound like the L12C3 election determines whether we >adjust under L12C2 or L12C3, but that is not true. We *always* adjust >under L12C2; the election determines whether may go on to "vary [the] >assigned adjusted score" (determined by having already applied L12C2) >under L12C3. Thus ruling where L12C3 applies must perforce require at >least as many decisions and determinations as ruling where it does >not. If the determinations leading to the L12C2 result are wrong, and >produce a wrong adjustment, we have no reason to think that the same >committee, using L12C3 to "fine tune" their original mis-adjustment >under L12C2, will make matters better rather than worse. You may not think so, but I do. If you have a situation where a pair gets their score on aboard increased from 20% to 80% by an AC or TD, because L12C2 is extreme: in effect they have no options but adjust to 80% or not adjust and leave at 20%. In much of the rest of the world there are weighted scores. Then an adjustment may come to have an effect of giving a pair 40%, or maybe 50%. When one of our ACs gets it wrong, they may have given a pair 20% too much: your AC will have given the pair 60% too much: I still cannot see how this argument suggests L12C3 is a bad thing. >So even if we were to reach the nirvana in which every committee >applied L12C2 in exactly the same way, introducing L12C3 would give >them the opportunity to introduce new inconsistencies. And I would >argue further that we have a far better chance to provide clear >guidelines and educate our committees to apply them correctly if we >stick to the interpretation of "likely" and "at all probable" and don't >have to worry about doing the same for "do equity", which is a lot more >nebulous a concept. Sure, it is easier: it is just less fair and leads to much greater injustices. >I believe Marv is saying that ACBL ACs must learn to walk before we try >to teach them how to run. Maybe he is, but I think he is wrong. Bring L12C3 in with regulations tying it down so that ACs will not be able to do what you appear to assume they will do, and life will be better, especially at the lower levels where these things matter more. Try enabling L12C3 for Flt B, Flt C and side games only at an NABC and see the improvement. After all, they do not have ACs anyway. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 01:24:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33FOs026617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:24:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f33FOlt26579 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:24:47 +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 IAA32567; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:24:44 -0700 Message-Id: <200104031524.IAA32567@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:52:04 BST." Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:24:43 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Short Round Robin teams A flight > > Bd. 3 S:K > Dlr:South H:AQJ95 > Vul:EW D:K1082 > C:KQ3 > S:A8653 S:Q1092 > H:863 H:2 > D:A743 D:65 > C:6 C:AJ8752 > S:J74 > H:K1074 > D:QJ9 > C:1094 > > W N E S > P > P 1H P 2H > P 2NT* P 3H** > P 4H all pass > > *Heart length & points asking, not alerted > **4 card Hearts, minimum > Result: 4H by N down1, EW+50 > > At the end of auction, the Director was called and was told that 2NT > were not alerted. He instructed the players to continue the play. After > the hand was finished, E/W called the director and claimed that had they > been alerted 2NT properly, East could have doubled 2NT for takeout and > they could reach 4S. > > Well? I agree. E/W's score should be adjusted from +50 to -100. :) Really, I don't see 4S making 4 as an "at all probable" result. Assuming the defense starts off with two rounds of hearts, there aren't enough entries to set up the clubs. If, instead, declarer ruffs the second heart and then ducks a diamond to prepare for a cross-ruff (or pitches a diamond on the second heart), the defense can kill this plan with a trump lead. Even if the defense fails to shift to a trump, declarer still has to get it right. He can ruff two diamonds and two hearts in East, but will eventually come down to A-8-6 in West with the lead there; now if he cashes the ace, playing for 2-2 trumps, he'll have to lead into South's J-7 and go down; but if he leads a low trump he will prevail. All in all, I don't think the chances of E/W +620 would be good enough to rule there is any damage, even if we knew E/W were going to reach 4S. You also have to factor in the probability that an actual East would be crazy enough to come in with a takeout double on this piece of cheese, missing one of the suits he's supposed to have for a double, at this vulnerability, when the opponents have shown *at* *least* game-invitational values. PLEEEEEEZE. -- 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 Apr 4 01:39:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33Fd9b01679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:39:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f33Fd3t01645 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:39:03 +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 LAA27709 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA17757 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:38:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104031538.LAA17757@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: Ed Reppert > "If it creates UI". How do we know? The same way we know whether any other action by a player creates UI. (L73B1 is likely to be more important than L16, in practice.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 02:10:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33GABh12588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:10:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com (juicer38.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f33GA5t12561 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:10:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.58]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GB855200.JSP for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:15:02 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-174.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.174]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Tiny-MailRouter V2.9c 1/15922088); 04 Apr 2001 02:09:46 Message-ID: <002a01c0bc58$6a8c56e0$aed936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:09:08 +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 David Stevenson wrote: >Short Round Robin teams A flight > >Bd. 3 S:K >Dlr:South H:AQJ95 >Vul:EW D:K1082 > C:KQ3 >S:A8653 S:Q1092 >H:863 H:2 >D:A743 D:65 >C:6 C:AJ8752 > S:J74 > H:K1074 > D:QJ9 > C:1094 > > W N E S > P > P 1H P 2H > P 2NT* P 3H** > P 4H all pass > >*Heart length & points asking, not alerted >**4 card Hearts, minimum >Result: 4H by N down1, EW+50 > > At the end of auction, the Director was called and was told >that 2NT were not alerted. He instructed the players to continue >the play. After the hand was finished, E/W called the director >and claimed that had they been alerted 2NT properly, East >could have doubled 2NT for takeout and they could reach 4S. The prevailing adverse vulnerability and East's dangerous holding of two small diamonds make a Double of 2NT seem unlikely. However if West does respond 4S to East's Double, North may well lead CK, allowing 4S to make, so if one allows East's Double then "4SX making" is a likely outcome. I personally would rule that Double is not sufficiently likely. 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 Apr 4 02:42:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33GgCd23956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:42:12 +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 f33Gg5t23922 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:42:05 +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 MAA00732 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA17821 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:42:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104031642.MAA17821@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: "Marvin L. French" > In the days before they were Alertable, I made one of my strong jump > overcalls, LHO glanced at my CC and passed, and partner bid. As RHO was > considering his next call, LHO (with a yarborough) picked up my > convention card to have another look--for partner's benefit, obviously. > Opener then also took a look, and passed. We can't have that, Seems to be a clear L73B1 violation. > and I don't think I'd have a provable case before an AC. As always, the TD might have a difficult time establishing the facts if the opposing pair deny everything. But if the facts are established, the violation seems obvious. (There might still be no adjustment if there is no damage.) I don't see how one's interpretation of the Lille interpretation would affect one's ruling on this case. L73B1 seems quite sufficient. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 03:52:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33Hpue18622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:51:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f33Hpnt18590 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:51:49 +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 f33HpiN87552 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:51:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010403131611.00b1cda0@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, 03 Apr 2001 13:52:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010403093016.00a93680@127.0.0.1> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010403093016.00a93680@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 11:10 AM 4/3/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >So even if we were to reach the nirvana in which every committee > >applied L12C2 in exactly the same way, introducing L12C3 would give > >them the opportunity to introduce new inconsistencies. And I would > >argue further that we have a far better chance to provide clear > >guidelines and educate our committees to apply them correctly if we > >stick to the interpretation of "likely" and "at all probable" and don't > >have to worry about doing the same for "do equity", which is a lot more > >nebulous a concept. > > Sure, it is easier: it is just less fair and leads to much greater >injustices. No, it is more fair and leads to "much greater injustices". A penalty is "fair" if it is known to potential transgressors and is applied uniformly and consistently, if everyone knows that "if they do the crime they'll do the time". Whether it is also "an injustice" depends on what it is. If one AC gives a pair 20% too much while the AC in the next room is giving a pair that committed the same infraction in the same situation 60% too much, the two pairs will, on average, have been treated more "justly" but less fairly than if both ACs gave the same 60% too much. Marv argues that players are better served, and would much prefer, being treated fairly than by being given adjustments that will sometimes, but only some of the time and only for some of the transgressors, be more appropriately in proportion to the severity of their infraction, and I agree. We therefore believe that we best serve our players by taking the easier road to fairness, by making our rulings fair first, by not handicapping ourselves with the less important goal of achieving perfect "justice" (AKA perfect "equity") at the same time. 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 Apr 4 04:29:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33ITVg02035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 04:29:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f33ITOt01995 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 04:29:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-029.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.221]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA47736 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:29:14 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:29:59 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0BC74.79132560.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] MI from Japan Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:29:58 +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: Short Round Robin teams A flight Bd. 3 S:K Dlr:South H:AQJ95 Vul:EW D:K1082 C:KQ3 S:A8653 S:Q1092 H:863 H:2 D:A743 D:65 C:6 C:AJ8752 S:J74 H:K1074 D:QJ9 C:1094 W N E S P P 1H P 2H P 2NT* P 3H** P 4H all pass *Heart length & points asking, not alerted **4 card Hearts, minimum Result: 4H by N down1, EW+50 At the end of auction, the Director was called and was told that 2NT were not alerted. He instructed the players to continue the play. After the hand was finished, E/W called the director and claimed that had they been alerted 2NT properly, East could have doubled 2NT for takeout and they could reach 4S. Well? East will double 2NT? Yeah right! Pull the other one. 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 Apr 4 05:07:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33J7KK15501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 05:07:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f33J7Dt15462 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 05:07:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f33J8G514814 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002901c0bc71$41f3d8c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:06:54 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > >From: "David Stevenson" < > > >The spirit of L12C3 is nothing new, at least for the NOS. The 1963 and > >1975 Laws stated that the NOS was not to receive more matchpoints than > >"the number required to offset the irregularity." The corollary that the > >OS adjustment should not be more than enough to offset the irregularity > >was not included. The OS could be assigned any score from one that > >merely offsets the irregularity to a complete zero. > > > >Feeling that the NOS had a right to the best score they might reasonably > >have attained absent the infraction, and that the score adjustment for > >the OS should be more stern and better defined, the current L12C2 was > >incorporated in 1987. I'm sure a lot of thought and intelligent debate > >went into that change, which seems to be accepted by most of the world's > >bridge population. There was no reason to backtrack with L12C3, which > >goes further than backtracking by (as currently implemented) giving the > >OS as well as the NOS its "perceived equity" in the deal. > > Of course it is reasonable to disagree with the implementation of > L12C3, but your given reasons are becoming less reasonable with each > post. The fact that L12C2 was adopted in 1987, and went a whole year > before being weakened by the WBFLC is hardly an argument it was right. Didn't say that. L12C2 has its faults. For instance, the "likely" and "at all probable" words are subject to misapplication by those not familiar with idiomatic English. Only saying that I can see no need to weaken L12C2, and the ACBL agreed with me. I'm not alone. > > >Same infraction, two very different adjustments by knowledgeable people. > >Just the sort of thing that we don't want from the Laws. > > You know perfectly well that in ACBL-land two different adjustments > are quite common by TDs and ACs, and that two different adjustments > would be given by two different ACs. You talk as though it only happens > with L12C3, when you know perfectly well [just by reading the case- > books, and also by your own comments over the years] that it happens > with L12C2. The constraints of L12C2 should make it less likely that different adjustments will result, even though it happens a lot. The fault lies not in L12C2, but in those who don't understand it. If TDs/ACs can't handle L12C2 properly, they are certainly not ready for the unconstrained version of L12C3. > The difference is that this is considerably less fair for > the players involved when it happens under L12C2. You could be right, but that only means to me that L12C2 should be better implemented, not that it should be weakened. Both laws can be unfairly applied. It's misleading to compare the fairness of L12C3 as used by knowledgeable people on BLML to the fairness of L12C2 as used by those who do not know what BLML is. > > >> In cases that do not involve MI I think L12C3 will be rarer, but my > >> guess is that L12C3 will be used, once people are used to it, in at > >> least 50% of assigned adjusted scores. > > > >Not in ACBL-land, thankfully. > > While it is reasonable to object to it, the reasons you give in this > post are actually reasons in favour of implementing L12C3. > I guess I have trouble getting my points across. 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 Apr 4 05:32:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33JW5224410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 05:32:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f33JVwt24375 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 05:31:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-67-174.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.67.174]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f33JVnH10701 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:31:49 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001801c0bc74$9e39f300$ae437bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com><3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk><003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:58:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Great actions are not always true sons Of great and mighty resolutions." - Samuel Butler ('Hudibras', 1663) + + + ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong > Marvin L. French writes > >From: "David Stevenson" < > ------------------------------ \x/ -------------------------- > >The spirit of L12C3 is nothing new, at least for the NOS. > >The 1963 and 1975 Laws stated that the NOS was not > > to receive more matchpoints than "the number required > > to offset the irregularity." The corollary that the OS > > adjustment should not be more than enough to offset > >.the irregularity was not included. The OS could be > > assigned any score from one that merely offsets the > > irregularity to a complete zero. > > +=+ The 1975 Laws did not make a distinction between an adjustment for the NOS and an adjustment for the OS. They intended a single adjustment of the table score. The distinction was introduced in the 1987 Code. +=+ > > >Feeling that the NOS had a right to the best score they > >might reasonably have attained absent the infraction, and > >that the score adjustment for the OS should be more > >stern and better defined, the current L12C2 was > >incorporated in 1987. I'm sure a lot of thought and > >intelligent debate went into that change, which seems to > >be accepted by most of the world's bridge population. > >There was no reason to backtrack with L12C3, which > >goes further than backtracking by (as currently > >implemented) giving the OS as well as the NOS its > >"perceived equity" in the deal. > > Of course it is reasonable to disagree with the > implementation of L12C3, but your given reasons are > becoming less reasonable with each post. The fact that > L12C2 was adopted in 1987, and went a whole year > before being weakened by the WBFLC is hardly an > argument it was right. > +=+ The facts are that the EBL disagreed with the proposal to change from awarding a single adjusted table score that did not overcompensate the NOS, with a penalty against the OS in the Director's discretion. The objection was raised when the early drafts were seen, before Miami. Kaplan would not agree a change to the draft in Miami, where the proposals were settled and sent to the copyright holders for their concurrence; the ACBL consented and published the laws in February 1987; the EBL consented and published in the March of that year, but required that the ongoing protest be pursued. The EBL was finally given its way in Ocho Rios, and the footnote became effective on 18th October, 1987. (As I recall, the WBF Laws Committee voted 11 for and 1 [EK] against, but somehow it did not appear in the ACBL book and a rumour went round that someone had overlooked the question of pursuing the minute with the ACBL. Be that as it may, it is there in the WBFLC minutes, along with the decision that it should have immediate effect, and not wait for publication.) ~ 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 Apr 4 05:57:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33Jv8b02738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 05:57:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from relay2.hot.ee (mail.hot.ee [194.126.101.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f33Jv1t02734 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 05:57:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from gammon (ppp2020.estpak.ee [194.126.120.244]) by relay2.hot.ee (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f33JpaI16731 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:51:37 +0200 From: "Stefanie L. Rohan" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:57:11 +0300 Message-ID: <000e01c0bc6f$e45d85e0$a9787ec2@gammon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Not having posted for years (well, once) I was hanging back and hoping that the following would become clear, but unfortunately it hasn't; I think I must be missing something. David Stevenson wrote: > 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. Are not the OS also required by L9B1 to call the director? And isn't it, after all, their responsibility, and not that of their opponents, to know the alert requirements of their system? Who is stopping *them* from calling the director, and giving the lady a chance to take back her bid? Why should *they* benefit from being law-breakers (on top of being regulation-breakers)? It seems fair to me that the opponent should get the opportunity to bid at the right level after the fact, if the pair who failed to alert cannot be bothered to call the director themselves. What have I missed? Cheers Stefanie Rohan > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 06:07:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33K7SM02925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:07:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f33K7Lt02918 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:07:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f33K8O521498 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:59:55 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nothing new here, folks, just a rehash of old arguments. You may want to hit the delete key. From: "Grattan Endicott" > From: Marvin L. French > > > > > From: "rhoxolan": > > > > > > I do not understand why there is discussion around 12C3 and > > > 12C2. I compare 12C3 with 64C as a kind of long stop or > > > safety net. Is this not what it is for? > > > > Yes, originally. Its purpose was to permit scores assigned per > > L12C2 to be modified ("vary an assigned adjusted score") when > > the L12C2 outcome is perceived to be inequitable. > > > > Using what I understand to be Grattan's definition, "equitable" > > means that each side gets its perceived equity in the deal > > that existed before the infraction, giving benefit of any doubt > > to the non-offenders. > > > +=+ accepting that a fine tuned equity is only > possible in the simplest of cases+=+ > > > > Actually there is nothing in the Laws that says redress > > of damage must be equitable. > > > +=+ Apart, perhaps, from 84D and the reference > to '*redress* for damage' in the Scope. Yes, 84D allows for restoration of equity by means of an adjusted score when a penalty is insufficient compensation for the NOS. As with the revoke penalty, which can be augmented by the TD if the penalty specified does not give enough tricks to the NOS to fully indemnify them. "Redress for damage" does not mean that the redress need be equitable (using the word as you use it). The revoke law is an excellent example. Using the Scope's words, it is primarily designed not as punishment for the irregularity, but rather as redress for damage. Equity isn't mentioned, and indeed the revoke penalty is usually inequitable. The 1987 change to make it more equitable took years to be learned by TDs, and some TDs in these parts still mess it up. Equity comes with a price. > Plus the fact > that 12C3 itself sets the ultimate target as being > equity and is part of the law.+=+ Not part of my Laws, here in ACBL-land. This is begging the question. You are justifying the equity goal of L12C3 by pointing to its words. > > > > Many of the Laws have penalties that are > > sometimes quite inequitable (e.g., penalty > > for a revoke). There are at least three > > reasons for this: > > > +=+ Penalties are to be distinguished from score > adjustment. It is shown in 12B that equity is not > the consideration in the case of a penalty. +=+ A pair that has a good score taken away from them sure feel like they have suffered a penalty. "No, no, you are not being penalized-- your score is merely being adjusted." Technically true, but not a distinction that most players would make. Especially when PPs are used to augment, or take the place of, a score adjustment. L12B. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. No, but s/he can (according to some) assess a PP on that basis. And if s/he feels that L12C2 adjustments are either unduly severe or advantageous to either side, they can be modified too, with L12C3. Both actions violate the spirit of L12B. Look, score adjustments are there because penalties for some irregularities cannot be specified in the usual way. There is nothing special about them, and they should be made with the same approach as that inherent in penalties: Make sure the NOS gets sufficient redress and make sure that the OS doesn't profit. That is justice, which is sometimes inequitable. The equity approach, taking care that the NOS is not over-compensated and the OS is not over-penalized, is sometimes unjust. It is more important that laws be just than that they be equitable. At any rate, laws should have a consistent philosophy throughout. It doesn't make sense to have a justice approach for penalties and an equity approach for score adjustments. > > > 1. It is impossible to devise penalties that are > > both simple and equitable, and simplicity is > > important enough to justify some inequities. > > > > 2. If infractions are sometimes penalized with > > more severity than is necessary for equity, > > players are more likely to play by the rules. > > > > 3. Penalties must ensure that non-offenders > > are fully protected, which sometimes results > > in over-protection. > > > > I doubt that many would accept total equity > > as the governing criterion for L12C3 score > > adjustments. Most apply L12C3 in a way that > > merely varies the adjusted score(s) considered > > in L12C2 to incorporate multiple possible > > results for one or both sides in the score > > adjustment(s), combining them in a weighted > > fashion according to their probabilities. The > > non-offenders are given the benefit of any doubt > > when calculating the probabilities. That is > > probably its most reasonable application. It is > > a move toward equity and away from both > > simplicity and deterrence. Some of us feel this > > is a move in the wrong direction. > > > +=+ Practice or convenience of practice is one > thing; the aim of the law another. The latter is > expressed clearly enough. But vengeance is > in no sense the purpose of the laws and I see > the objection to 12C3 as a desire to avenge > more than a desire to deter. Deterrence is a valuable byproduct of bridge justice, but not it's main purpose. If you see it as vengeance, I have no answer for that. > The possibility of > a PP is always there for deterrence. +=+ I see no reference to PPs in L12. Was that an oversight? > > > > However, if you go through the Lille AC writeups, > > you find that L12C3 was used to justify any > > action that the AC thought suitable, usually in > > disregard of L12C2. That attitude alone, > > apparently legal, is enough to brand L12C3 as > > an unacceptable Law. > > > +=+ That is a self-fulfilling piece of sophistry; > where 12C3 is used the AC is defining what it > considers to be fair and equitable. That is the > power remitted to it by 12C3, overriding > 12C2, and in the modern usage also now - by > delegation from Appeals Committees - with > much success to Directors. +=+ > > I was just going by the words of L12C3: "...an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity." To me that says you assign an adjusted score for each side first, using the principles of L12C2 (including "most favorable" and "most unfavorable"), and then modify either or both if the result seems too inequitable. Is that really sophistry? I think that's how Kojak sees it. Others believe L12C3 stands alone, and implement it as if it said "...as an alternative to L12C2, an appeals committee may do anything it wants, including the awarding of procedural penalties (see L90)." Arguing that this license is granted by L12C3 strikes me as sophistry. 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 Apr 4 06:17:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33KHWm03310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:17:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f33KHOt03301 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:17:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f33KIR524337 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004a01c0bc7b$10618640$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200104031642.MAA17821@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:15:07 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > In the days before they were Alertable, I made one of my strong jump > > overcalls, LHO glanced at my CC and passed, and partner bid. As RHO was > > considering his next call, LHO (with a yarborough) picked up my > > convention card to have another look--for partner's benefit, obviously. > > Opener then also took a look, and passed. We can't have that, > > Seems to be a clear L73B1 violation. Yes, especially under the current L40E2. If that were changed to allow inspection of the opposing CC at any time, I doubt that the violation would be penalized. Our TDs pay little heed to L73B1, and all sorts of violations (e.g., the pro question, STOP card irregularity) go unchecked. > 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 Apr 4 06:57:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33KveD04813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:57:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f33KvVt04804 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:57:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f33KwY500076 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007501c0bc80$ab42ee60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com><3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk><003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001801c0bc74$9e39f300$ae437bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:48:08 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: > > > ------------------------------ \x/ -------------------------- > > >The spirit of L12C3 is nothing new, at least for the NOS. > > >The 1963 and 1975 Laws stated that the NOS was not > > > to receive more matchpoints than "the number required > > > to offset the irregularity." The corollary that the OS > > > adjustment should not be more than enough to offset > > >.the irregularity was not included. The OS could be > > > assigned any score from one that merely offsets the > > > irregularity to a complete zero. > > > > +=+ The 1975 Laws did not make a distinction between > an adjustment for the NOS and an adjustment for the OS. > They intended a single adjustment of the table score. The > distinction was introduced in the 1987 Code. +=+ 1975, L12C2: (a) The number of points assigned to the non-offending side should not exceed the number required to offset the irregularity. (b) The number of points assigned to the offending side to offset the irregularity may be reduced by penalty points. I see a distinction there. Since there is no limit given, (b) could result in a complete zero for an egregious offense. By the way, "penalty points" per L12 were not synonymous with "procedural penalties" per L90. Points given to the NOS were called "indemnity points" and those taken from the OS were called "penalty points." Nothing to do with L90 PPs, whose use in connection with L12 is a recent phenomenon. 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 Apr 4 07:13:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33LC5G05378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 07:12:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe22.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.79]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f33LBwt05369 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 07:11:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:11:51 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.70.121] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3AC82C5F.A56445A9@comarch.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:18:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2001 21:11:51.0867 (UTC) FILETIME=[B40990B0:01C0BC82] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Konrad Ciborowski To: BLML Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 2:38 AM Subject: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling Hi gang, A ruling from Polish Division Three that looked rather trivial to me but will get to an AC. Screens. W N E S 2H* p 2S* p 2NT 3D p p p WE were on the same side of the screen as usual. 2H opening was alerted on both sides of the screen and explained as 11-16, 5+-5+ without spades. 2S was alerted on both sides of the screen and explained as a relay. 2NT was alerted on NE side and explained as "minors". North tried to show his major two-suiter with the 3D cue-bid. On the WS side 2NT wasn't alerted, South never asked its meaning and assumed 3D to be natural. 3D finished -5. South called the TD. The ruling was "result stands for both sides". North-South appealed. To me the ruling looks correct and rather obious [no, I wasn't involved :)] but perhaps I am missing something (OK, almost correct, IM(H)O a PP should have been given to WE for the failure to alert). Comments welcome. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland What was the agreement to 3D? 'Trying' is a bit different from agreeing. I should like to know what the CC said. I assume that South did not consult it. If NS have conditional agreements [eg unusual/ unusual] to act in total disregard of any knowledge of the knowable distribution surely is reckless, except of course when the player already knew without inquiry. 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 Apr 4 07:17:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33LHh405606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 07:17:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f33LHbt05599 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 07:17:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f33LIe502852 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b001c0bc83$79fdfcc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:14:12 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" > > Deterrence is a valuable byproduct of bridge justice, but not it's main > purpose. If you see it as vengeance, I have no answer for that. > Only illiterates write "it's" for "its." My accident, you know... Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 08:10:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33MA2r07426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:10:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f33M9rt07417 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:09:54 +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 SAA16196 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA18156 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:09:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104032209.SAA18156@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: "Marvin L. French" > Yes, especially under the current L40E2. If that were changed to allow > inspection of the opposing CC at any time... I don't think anyone has proposed changing L40E2 in that way. I certainly have not; I think L40E2 is just fine the way it is. I also think the Lille interpretation of L40E2 is just fine. My difficulty is that some people are interpreting the Lille "extraneous" as a synonym for "illegal." If the WBFLC had meant to say "illegal," I would have expected them to have used that word or a close synonym, not a different word that has an entirely different meaning in bridge rulings. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 09:56:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f33Nteb16369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:55:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f33NtVt16315 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:55:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.22.212] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14kadl-0001wM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:55:13 +0100 Message-ID: <002401c0bc99$786866a0$d416073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200104031524.IAA32567@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:54:47 +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 Just to set the record straight, for people concerned about the (narrow-sense) "equity" in the position: Adam wrote: > > Bd. 3 S:K > > Dlr:South H:AQJ95 > > Vul:EW D:K1082 > > C:KQ3 > > S:A8653 S:Q1092 > > H:863 H:2 > > D:A743 D:65 > > C:6 C:AJ8752 > > S:J74 > > H:K1074 > > D:QJ9 > > C:1094 > > > > W N E S > > P > > P 1H P 2H > > P 2NT* P 3H** > > P 4H all pass > Really, I don't see 4S making 4 as an "at all probable" result. Who knows? Declarer will have to play as follows (it is left as an exercise for the reader to determine whether such a line would be "likely" for declarer or "at all probable" for his opponents): > Assuming the defense starts off with two rounds of hearts, there > aren't enough entries to set up the clubs. True, if declarer ruffs the second heart, but he need not. > If, instead, declarer > ruffs the second heart and then ducks a diamond to prepare for a > cross-ruff He will go down, and this line is demonstrably hopeless against almost any lie of cards. > (or pitches a diamond on the second heart), He must do this in order to make the contract, but this is fairly obvious for an above-average declarer. > the defense can > kill this plan with a trump lead. No, they cannot. West wins the ace of spades, declarer plays CA and ruffs a club, plays a spade to the queen, ruffs another club and tables his cards, conceding only to the jack of spades. > Even if the defense fails to shift > to a trump, declarer still has to get it right. He can ruff two > diamonds and two hearts in East, but will eventually come down to > A-8-6 in West with the lead there; now if he cashes the ace, playing > for 2-2 trumps, he'll have to lead into South's J-7 and go down; but > if he leads a low trump he will prevail. This may or may not be true - I have not checked it, for it is irrelevant; with clubs 3-3, declarer cannot realistically go down. > All in all, I don't think the chances of E/W +620 would be good enough > to rule there is any damage, even if we knew E/W were going to reach > 4S. If EW were to reach 4S, it would almost certainly make; it is not as if there were any attractive alternative to the winning line. > You also have to factor in the probability that an actual East > would be crazy enough to come in with a takeout double on this piece > of cheese, missing one of the suits he's supposed to have for a > double, at this vulnerability, when the opponents have shown *at* > *least* game-invitational values. PLEEEEEEZE. This, on the other hand, makes a great deal of sense. If both East and West passed on the first round, the chances seem to me negligible that they would enter the auction thereafter. However, I could imagine being persuaded by an East more expert than I that whereas it is by no means obvious to bid over 1H, to enter the auction after a correctly-explained 2NT is at any rate plausible. Again, you *have to hear the evidence*; it is not enough to rule in the abstract, as we are so often (though understandably) asked to do on this list. 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 Apr 4 10:18:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f340Hhj21817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:17:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f340HXt21812 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:17:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14kazJ-0008nm-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:17:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:15:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan 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 > >Short Round Robin teams A flight > >Bd. 3 S:K >Dlr:South H:AQJ95 >Vul:EW D:K1082 > C:KQ3 >S:A8653 S:Q1092 >H:863 H:2 >D:A743 D:65 >C:6 C:AJ8752 > S:J74 > H:K1074 > D:QJ9 > C:1094 > > W N E S > P > P 1H P 2H > P 2NT* P 3H** > P 4H all pass > >*Heart length & points asking, not alerted >**4 card Hearts, minimum >Result: 4H by N down1, EW+50 I'm not convinced 4S makes enough of the time to adjust. > At the end of auction, the Director was called and was told that 2NT >were not alerted. He instructed the players to continue the play. After >the hand was finished, E/W called the director and claimed that had they >been alerted 2NT properly, East could have doubled 2NT for takeout and >they could reach 4S. > > Well? > 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 Apr 4 11:02:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3412Ej05445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:02:14 +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 f34125t05395 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:02:06 +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 SAA11968; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:02:00 -0700 Message-Id: <200104040102.SAA11968@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:54:47 BST." <002401c0bc99$786866a0$d416073e@pbncomputer> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:01:59 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > No, they cannot. West wins the ace of spades, declarer plays CA and > ruffs a club, plays a spade to the queen, ruffs another club and tables > his cards, conceding only to the jack of spades. Aagh, yes, looks like you're right---this is the one combination I missed. After declarer pitches a diamond on the second heart, the defense can play a third heart to kill the club suit, or they can shift to a trump to kill the crossruff, but they can't do both. If they play a third heart, East ruffs a heart and three diamonds, coming down to this with the lead in East: K J9 -- -- A86 -- -- -- -- -- -- J87 J74 -- -- -- The location of the spots means that the defense will be held to one more trick. (It doesn't help South to underruff the last diamond.) I guess we'd have to rule differently if West's spade suit were A8543 instead of A8653, because then contract *will* go down after three rounds of hearts. Interesting hand. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 12:05:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3424X515155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:04:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3424Qt15150 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:04:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-66-160.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.66.160]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3424HH27256 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:04:17 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003101c0bcab$72c4bf20$a0427bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com><3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk><003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001801c0bc74$9e39f300$ae437bd5@dodona> <007501c0bc80$ab42ee60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:36:31 +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 "Great actions are not always true sons Of great and mighty resolutions." - Samuel Butler ('Hudibras', 1663) + + + ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong --------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- > 1975, L12C2: > > (a) The number of points assigned to the non-offending > side should not exceed the number required to offset > the irregularity. > > (b) The number of points assigned to the offending > side to offset the irregularity may be reduced by > penalty points. > > I see a distinction there. Since there is no limit > given, (b) could result in a complete zero for an > egregious offense. > > By the way, "penalty points" per L12 were not > synonymous with "procedural penalties" per L90. > Points given to the NOS were called "indemnity > points" and those taken from the OS were called > "penalty points." Nothing to do with L90 PPs, whose > use in connection with L12 is a recent phenomenon. > +=+ But 'penalty' as distinct from 'score adjustment'; the score adjustment was first settled and then a penalty might or might not be applied to reduce the score of the OS. And the 'recent phenomenon' is only to restore the 1975 technique, as the EBL insisted, in the absence now of the reference to penalty points. I do know this subject inside out - on behalf of the EBL I debated it in detail and at length with Kaplan in the 1985/6 years, expressing our dismay at the attempt to wash away what we considered an ideal formula. ~ 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 Apr 4 12:05:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3424wJ15176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:04:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3424nt15168 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:04:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-66-160.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.66.160]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3424JH27264; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:04:19 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003201c0bcab$74dddb20$a0427bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anna Gudge" , , "cathie ritchie" , "Cathrina Endicott" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Kojak" , "lynn hunt" , "Patricia Davidson" , "Paul Endicott" Cc: Subject: [BLML] Florida here we come. Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:01:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "No parent could place the uncorrected book in the hands of his daughter, so I have prepared 'The Family Shakespeare'. - Thomas Bowdler. + + + Closing until Apl 21. Spending a couple of weeks being grilled by Kojak on my beliefs - and avoiding any talk of recent local history, here or there. And no doubt yielding to the wishes of the ladies occasionally. ~ 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 Apr 4 12:11:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f342BX215396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:11:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f342BQt15389 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:11:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-74-203.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.74.203]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f342AkH29324; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:10:47 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000701c0bcac$5ad9e4c0$cb4a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200104032209.SAA18156@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:09:10 +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 "No parent could place the uncorrected book in the hands of his daughter, so I have prepared 'The Family Shakespeare'. - Thomas Bowdler. + + + ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Referring to CC ------------- \x/ ----------------- > > My difficulty is that some people are interpreting the Lille "extraneous" as > a synonym for "illegal." If the WBFLC had meant to say "illegal," I would have > expected them to have used that word or a close synonym, not a different > word that has an entirely different meaning in bridge rulings. > -- +=+ 'Extraneous' was the word - not part of the game and therefore not to influence the game, as by yielding information that can be used. ~ 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 Apr 4 14:38:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f344Zkv07818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:35:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f344Zct07812 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:35:39 +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 f344X5w18755; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:33:05 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:28:45 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:19 PM +0100 3/29/01, David Stevenson wrote: >It is L21B3 that means you do >not get adjustment for a call that could have been changed under L21B1. I missed this originally, but Stefanie Rohan's message brought it up again, and it caught my eye. Law 21B3 says "When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an adjusted score (Law 40C may apply)." Law 40C says "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score." As I understand it, failure to alert an alertable call *is* a failure to explain the full meaning of that call. I do not see how you arrive, from those three premises (or even just the first two, really), at the conclusion that NOs are not entitled to an adjustment if they didn't call the TD in time for 21B1 to be applied. Please explain. 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/AwUBOsqkl72UW3au93vOEQKlIACgg+K3BwHcAiiD00B7Md0tsrchYTUAn0ui WE/GJoPO/4WhsSPOSGQgWoVl =mzvN -----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 Apr 4 14:39:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f344djN07936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:39:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f344ddt07932 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:39:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f344eg516803 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00c801c0bcc1$3b91e120$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200104031524.IAA32567@mailhub.irvine.com> <002401c0bc99$786866a0$d416073e@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:38:30 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > Just to set the record straight, for people concerned about the > (narrow-sense) "equity" in the position: > > Adam wrote: > > > > > Bd. 3 S:K > > > Dlr:South H:AQJ95 > > > Vul:EW D:K1082 > > > C:KQ3 > > > S:A8653 S:Q1092 > > > H:863 H:2 > > > D:A743 D:65 > > > C:6 C:AJ8752 > > > S:J74 > > > H:K1074 > > > D:QJ9 > > > C:1094 > > > > > > W N E S > > > P > > > P 1H P 2H > > > P 2NT* P 3H** > > > P 4H all pass > > > Really, I don't see 4S making 4 as an "at all probable" result. > > Who knows? Declarer will have to play as follows (it is left as an > exercise for the reader to determine whether such a line would be > "likely" for declarer or "at all probable" for his opponents): David should know better than to use these words out of context. It furthers the popular misbelief that a result has to be likely in order to be assigned to the NOS. For the umpteenth time, "the most favorable result that was likely" may not be a likely result. Also, "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" may be quite improbable. 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 Apr 4 16:06:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3466Om26920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:06:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3466Ft26871 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:06:16 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 354759265; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:01:36 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:01:31 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:52 PM +0100 4/3/01, David Stevenson wrote: >After the hand was finished, E/W called the director and claimed that had they >been alerted 2NT properly, East could have doubled 2NT for takeout and >they could reach 4S. On the evidence posted I would deem it not even at all probable that EW would score 620 on this hand, had they received correct information. In the ACBL I'd stop at that point - the result stands. What about in a zone where 12C3 is in effect? I don't think it would happen as often as one time in 100 here but suppose the hand were different and the committee judged that given correct information EW would score +620 3% of the time. Would the committee then have to award EW 3% of the score for +620 and 97% of the score for +50? I've been silent in the "I was wrong" thread. I think my views are well known here, but I'll chime in with them again before long. This case, though, shows me an advantage of 12C2 I hadn't considered. The NOS may get slightly less than their equity is a case like this, but we save a lot of time for directors and committees. On cases where there is more likelihood of damage the NOS will receive more than their equity, more than balancing out these cases where damage is possible but the possibility is too slight to calculate realistically. Since I believe the goal of the laws is and ought to be justice, not equity, I am not troubled by this. I am most certainly not troubled that the OS will receive, on average, less than their equity had they committed no infraction! AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 16:18:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f346HoC27987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:17:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f346Hht27980 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:17:44 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 865D19308; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:13:51 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? 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 2:11 PM +0100 4/2/01, David Stevenson wrote: >No idea. That is basically what I was trying to find out by starting >this thread. No, no, David, you entirely misunderstand the point of the list. The idea is not to learn but to browbeat the other posters. AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 17:58:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f347vR302194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:57:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f347vFt02178 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:57:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-234.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.234]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f347vA126853 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:57:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AC9EDBC.278E41E5@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:35:24 +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] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling References: <011301c0bc27$0065ec80$5fd936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Peter, Peter Gill wrote: > > Warning - long post which IMO throws new light on the problem > indeed it does. > >Herman de Wael wrote: > >thus that the "presumed" meaning of 2NT as being natural, > >since non-alerted is ridiculous. > thanks for correcting my typo. > The concept of 2NT being "natural" i.e. 'showing a stopper-like > spade holding ' may not be widely played in this particular > auction, but it is an intelligent treatment rather than a > ridiculous one, AS LONG AS 2S includes strong hands > (i.e if 3NT is a possible contract) ... which leads to ..... > > Konrad Ciborowski had written: > >>>2S was alerted on both sides of the screen and > >>>explained as a relay. > > If, as is likely, 2H - 2NT is a strong, game-going relay and > 2S was a weaker relay heading towards partscore (thus > allowing 2NT safely to have a non-natural meaning), then > 2S was grossly and inadequately misexplained on both > sides of the screen. > Indeed it was. > Konrad, was this the case? What would 2NT have meant in > response to 2H? > > If so, the misexplanation of 2S has contributed to South's > failure to ask the meaning of 2NT, making it even clearer > that poor South is entitled to an adjusted score rather than > having to put up with a lot of know-it-alls who know that > South should have divined that he should have asked the > meaning of the unalerted 2NT. These know-it-alls seem to > expect South to play near-perfect bridge, picking up all the > inferences from EW's bidding methods which might be > unfamiliar to him, and perhaps they also expect South to know > EW's bidding system better (perhaps) than the non-alerting West. > > West fails to alert. It seems to me that EW both misexplained > an earlier bid too. South is confronted by an unusual auction > and is meant to decipher exactly which infraction West > committed - from South's point of view, perhaps the error > was that the 2H bid includes 20-21 balanced and 2NT was > not alertable. Is South meant to help a possibly-confused > West out by giving West a chance to write down what's really happening > (remember that written explanantions are required > with screens)? Can't South simply play bridge? Does South > have to draw the right conclusions about the reason for the opponent's > infraction? Just because we now know (in retrospect) > that West's 2NT did show one of the suit combinations (which it > didn't have to; it could be playable for 3C to show "clubs and > a red suit"), do we have to present our biased position of knowing > what happened to South? Must we tell South that we who now > know what happened say that at the time South should with less > information available have drawn the same conclusion which is obvious to > those of us who now have all the time in the world to examine the hand? > Is South allowed to be human? > You should have been South's defense lawyer at the AC hearing. Your points are well taken. But you miss one point. If South is only mildly awake, he will be asking about 2He-2Sp-2NT while the tray is on the other side. Tyring to find "natural" meanings for 2NT, from the other side of the world at that, just to exonerate South for not showing interest in the bidding seems a little over the top. Anyway, I am not defending a Polish TD of whom I don't even know what the ruling was. I was just trying to explain to David what he had missed in the original. > Another important point, which is boringly routine to anyone > who has ever made a ruling involving screens, but may be new > to those not familiar with screens, is that South received the > tray after East's Pass. This well-known phenomenon destroys > the natural timing of bridge. In normal bridge, South sees his > partner's call, then sees RHO's call, then makes his call. With > screens, South has had less time to study the auction, and is > far more likely to pass 3D before he has had the time to catch > on to all the ramifications of the auction, due to the artificial > timing created by screens. When playing with screens, the players are used to this artificiality. When partner suddenly bids something, it is up to South to try and figure out what it means. > This makes it even clearer to award > an adjusted score. NPCs should note that when in doubt one > should place one's more impulsive bidders EW to protect > against this phenomenon. > > Scott Cardell's post has convinced me that South is being > treated meanly by a lot of the commentators, who IMO are > living in a theoretical rather than a practical world by putting > all this pressure on South to be EW's alerting assistant. > > Herman de Wael wrote: > >South should have asked what 2NT meant, regardless > >of there being an alert or not. > > Herman, don't you find bridge slow enough when you play > with screens? Do you really have to insist that players > potentially waste time asking the meaning of unalerted > bids? Do you also require that South re-check the meaning > of 2H just in case it included a balanced 20-21 which either: > - West omitted to mention last time, or > - South missed in the scrawl earlier, or > > Has West turned up with a balanced 20-21, we in retrospect > would have looked at this problem by stating "when West > doesn't alert 2NT, South obviously will realise that West left > out the 20-21 meaning of 2H". > > There were so many possibilities at the time of South's > failure to ask about 2NT. For space reasons, I have > discussed only some of them. We have the problem of being > biased observers in that we see the problem later and we are > presented with more data than South had at his disposal. > > By the way, when Screen Regulations are written, do the > regulators usually allow players to look at the opponents' > CC when the bidding tray is on the other side of the screen? > > Peter Gill > Australia. > (last question was to test to see if anyone is still reading) > I was. I don't believe the regulations deal with this. They should. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 17:58:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f347vQH02193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:57:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f347vDt02177 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:57:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-234.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.234]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f347v7126833 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:57:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AC9EA79.389A4AA7@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:21:29 +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] What is equity in a revoke situation? References: <005f01c0bb99$4bf965c0$7a9a01d5@pbncomputer> <00cf01c0b8be$7d7cc5c0$0f497ad5@pbncomputer> <005f01c0bb99$4bf965c0$7a9a01d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010403083330.00b18330@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: > > > Equity at the point of the infraction is 10 tricks. Equity is affected > by the play prior to the infraction, and includes a trick which may > have been "gained" "owing to incompetence by the defence", or a good > guess by declarer, or whatever else has happened *in the play*. I > would agree with David that this is obvious. > > Now suppose that declarer had nine tricks to start with but the > "incompetence by the defense" wasn't a lead that cost a trick, but > rather a harmless revoke (one having no effect on the subsequent > play). The defense lost the revoke trick but won a subsequent > trick. Absent the infraction, declarer would actually take nine tricks > but would be scored as having taken 10 after application of the revoke > penalty. This is, I believe, the scenario we are concerned with. My > view is that equity at the time of the infraction is nine tricks, not > 10, and the adjustment to rectify the infraction should use that as its > basis. Then the revoke penalty should be applied, "after play ceases", > and the adjusted score further adjusted to account for the revoke, just > as it would have been had there been no infraction and the score (at > the point at which "play ceases") had not been an adjusted one. > Eric, I believe you are wrong, and I'll tell you why I believe so. After the first revoke is discovered, the TD may be summoned. He will tell both sides about the (possible) cost of the revoke. From this point on, declarer knows he has an extra trick, even if he shall only get it at the end. He can now plan his play and execute a different line, perhaps by choosing a different safety play. This IMHO means that his equity position is now 10 tricks. Perhaps this is not very clear, and it is not easy to construct an example that makes it more so, but I sincerely believe that the "expected penalty trick" is part of the equity situation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 17:58:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f347vVp02197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:57:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f347vKt02187 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:57:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-234.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.234]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f347vE126869 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:57:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AC9F013.BC24A2A9@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:45:23 +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] L68E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Don't look it up, it's not in your Lawbook. But perhaps it should be. After all, the WBFLC did decide in Lille on a change in the Laws, without doing it on paper. I am talking of the decision that if there has been a revoke, doubtful points in a claim are to be decided against revoker, not claimer. I was trying to formulate this in Law-speak (and that would be L68E) when I came accross something that has not yet been tought of. I hope my example covers all bases : AQxxx KJxxx Ax Kx xx xx AJ9x KT8x Declarer is in 4Sp on a heart lead. He plays two rounds of spades and no-one follows to the second. He cashes another heart, to make the revoke established. Now he claims, stating "I give 2 diamond tricks but get one back from the revoke, and since the TD shall rule against you, I shall always pick up the queen of clubs, that's 11 + 1 penalty tricks". Perhaps L68E should read : "If after a claim has occured, a revoke is discovered, the normal revoke penalties apply, and all doubtful points go against revoking side. However, if claimer could have known at the time of his claim that there had been a revoke (such as when both opponents have shown out of a suit not fully accounted for), doubtful points that the revoke has no bearing on, will remain going against claimer." -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 19:49:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f349mcu16834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:48:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail5.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail5.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f349mUt16791 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:48:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail5.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010404094827.CDPJ26293.femail5.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:48:27 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] MI from Japan Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:52:11 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > At the end of auction, the Director was called and was told that 2NT >were not alerted. He instructed the players to continue the play. After >the hand was finished, E/W called the director and claimed that had they >been alerted 2NT properly, East could have doubled 2NT for takeout and >they could reach 4S. Well... at the end of the auction the director could have taken East away from the table..... Sorry - couldn't resist... *ducking for cover* Linda > > 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 Wed Apr 4 21:03:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34B2bT23130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:02:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f34B2Lt23110 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:02:22 +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 14kl3J-0002En-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:02:18 +0100 Message-ID: <2VWjVbAuauy6EwnZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:17:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call References: <000e01c0bc6f$e45d85e0$a9787ec2@gammon> In-Reply-To: <000e01c0bc6f$e45d85e0$a9787ec2@gammon> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Stefanie L. Rohan writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> 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. >Are not the OS also required by L9B1 to call the director? And isn't it, >after all, their responsibility, and not that of their opponents, to know >the alert requirements of their system? Who is stopping *them* from calling >the director, and giving the lady a chance to take back her bid? Why should >*they* benefit from being law-breakers (on top of being >regulation-breakers)? > >It seems fair to me that the opponent should get the opportunity to bid at >the right level after the fact, if the pair who failed to alert cannot be >bothered to call the director themselves. What have I missed? Suppose Stefanie Rohan is playing with David Burn, and at another table Marv French is playing with Grattan Endicott. The same MI is discovered, attention being drawn, at both tables simultaneously during the same auction. DB naturally calls the TD: GE and MF do not. This gives GE and MF an advantage over SR and DB. That is the advantage I dislike so much. No, I am not worried about what happens to the offending side, but I do not like the pair that calls the TD suffering compared to a pair that does not. Of course, once this position is realised, no unscrupulous pair will ever call the TD in this situation - if we do not follow the letter of L21. If you think the real OS at the table is gaining thereby, fine, deal with them. I have no problem with either adjusting solely against the side that gave MI, or just giving them a PP: but we must not adjust in favour of NOS who seek to gain an advantage by not following the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 21:03:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34B2aw23128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:02:36 +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 f34B2Nt23114 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:02:24 +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 14kl3L-0002Eo-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:02:20 +0100 Message-ID: <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:18:44 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >At 12:19 PM +0100 3/29/01, David Stevenson wrote: >>It is L21B3 that means you do >>not get adjustment for a call that could have been changed under L21B1. > >I missed this originally, but Stefanie Rohan's message brought it up >again, and it caught my eye. > >Law 21B3 says "When it is too late to change a call, the Director may >award an adjusted score (Law 40C may apply)." Law 40C says "If the >Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' >failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award >an adjusted score." As I understand it, failure to alert an alertable >call *is* a failure to explain the full meaning of that call. I do >not see how you arrive, from those three premises (or even just the >first two, really), at the conclusion that NOs are not entitled to an >adjustment if they didn't call the TD in time for 21B1 to be applied. >Please explain. L21B3 says "When it is too late ...": we are dealing with situations which were not too late to change 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 Wed Apr 4 21:03:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34B2a623127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:02:36 +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 f34B2Mt23112 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:02:22 +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 14kl3J-0002Ep-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:02:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:28:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$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 >L12B. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that >the penalty provided is either unduly severe or advantageous to either >side. > >No, but s/he can (according to some) assess a PP on that basis. And if >s/he feels that L12C2 adjustments are either unduly severe or >advantageous to either side, they can be modified too, with L12C3. Both >actions violate the spirit of L12B. No. L12B tells the TD or AC not to vary an adjustment from that provided in L12C because he thinks it is too severe/advantageous. That includes L12C3 adjustment. You seem to assume that L12B is modifier of L12C2 only but that is an untenable position: look at the wording. [s] >At any rate, laws should have a consistent philosophy throughout. It >doesn't make sense to have a justice approach for penalties and an >equity approach for score adjustments. Why not? A perfectly fair and workable arrangement! English and American Law both do the same. [s] >Others believe L12C3 stands alone, and implement it as if it said "...as >an alternative to L12C2, an appeals committee may do anything it wants, >including the awarding of procedural penalties (see L90)." Arguing that >this license is granted by L12C3 strikes me as sophistry. I really have no idea who thinks L12C3 allows an AC to do anything it wants. Certainly not the ACs. Of course, L12C3 has nothing to do with awarding PPs, which an AC has a complete right to do so under L90 and L93B3. That means they have an unalienable right to issue PPs whether L12C3 is enabled or not [eg ACBL ACs have a right to issue PPs] so has nothing to do with L12C3. What is beginning to surprise me more and more, Marv, is that your objections to L12C3 seem to be based on things that do not happen. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 4 22:46:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34CkCK11539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:46:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f34Ck3t11490 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:46:04 +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 OAA29254; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:42:15 +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 OAA12644; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:45:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010404144848.0080d100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:48:48 +0200 To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] MI from Japan In-Reply-To: <01C0BC74.79132560.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 19:29 3/04/01 +0100, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >DWS asked: >Short Round Robin teams A flight > >Bd. 3 S:K >Dlr:South H:AQJ95 >Vul:EW D:K1082 > C:KQ3 >S:A8653 S:Q1092 >H:863 H:2 >D:A743 D:65 >C:6 C:AJ8752 > S:J74 > H:K1074 > D:QJ9 > C:1094 > > W N E S > P > P 1H P 2H > P 2NT* P 3H** > P 4H all pass > >*Heart length & points asking, not alerted >**4 card Hearts, minimum >Result: 4H by N down1, EW+50 > > At the end of auction, the Director was called and was told that 2NT >were not alerted. He instructed the players to continue the play. After >the hand was finished, E/W called the director and claimed that had they >been alerted 2NT properly, East could have doubled 2NT for takeout and >they could reach 4S. > > >East will double 2NT? Yeah right! Pull the other one. AG : let's word it mildly. This is not a balancing auction. While there are many hands which won't double 1H, but would double 1H-p-2H-p-p back to them for obvious reasons, there are *no* hands in my view that would not double 1H but would commit to 3S, with opps contemplating going to 4H on brute power, whenever partner holds 4 spades. I'd rather bid 2C over 1H (good question : if East was in aggressive mood, why didn't he ? It could even have enabled them to find spades via 1H-2C-2H-X etc.) than prostitute myself in 3SX facing a perfectly normal xxxx-Kxx-KJxx-xx. The difference is that this hand is impossible when I'm reopening vs 2H. Come to think of it, if North had passed 3H, they would have been known to hold 9 hearts and about 22-23 HCP, and in *that* case I would perhaps wish to reopen with less insecurity. Tu cut it short, I don't believe East. 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 Apr 4 22:48:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34Cmli12468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:48:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f34Cmdt12415 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:48:39 +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 OAA29952; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:44:51 +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 OAA14468; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:48:13 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010404145124.0080aba0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:51:24 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan In-Reply-To: <00c801c0bcc1$3b91e120$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <200104031524.IAA32567@mailhub.irvine.com> <002401c0bc99$786866a0$d416073e@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:38 3/04/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >For the umpteenth time, "the most favorable result that was likely" may >not be a likely result. Also, "the most unfavorable result that was at >all probable" may be quite improbable. AG : and the best of all possible worlds is impossible. Don't we experiment it day after day ? But we are now missing the essential : would East *really* have doubled 2NT, had he known ? I answer a firm no. 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 Apr 4 22:49:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34CnFG12620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:49:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f34Cn7t12574 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:49:08 +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 f34Cn3G86444 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:49:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010404083430.00b27b40@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, 04 Apr 2001 08:50:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] L68E In-Reply-To: <3AC9F013.BC24A2A9@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 11:45 AM 4/3/01, Herman wrote: >Perhaps L68E should read : > >"If after a claim has occured, a revoke is discovered, the >normal revoke penalties apply, and all doubtful points go >against revoking side. However, if claimer could have known >at the time of his claim that there had been a revoke (such >as when both opponents have shown out of a suit not fully >accounted for), doubtful points that the revoke has no >bearing on, will remain going against claimer." The problem is that any time both opponents show out with fewer than 13 cards in the suit unaccounted for, claimer "could have known... that there had been a revoke" had they been counting, creating a situation in which one could lose out by making what is now a proper claim if one hasn't been counting or has counted incorrectly. Thus the time-honored practice of declarer playing top trumps until both opponents show out and then going about their business becomes one which may cost tricks in this particular situation. This is not necessarily bad, but would, I think, require other, compensating, changes in the laws. Would we really want, for example, to apply L70C when both opponents have shown out of trump? I guess some of us would -- the same some of us who think the defender in that other thread made an egregious error by playing partner for the DA after declarer showed out of diamonds because he "could have known", had he been counting, that declarer must have revoked -- but I am not among 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 Wed Apr 4 22:57:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34Cv8o15440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:57:08 +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 f34Cuxt15398 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:57:00 +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 OAA14722; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:56:15 +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 OAA19699; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:56:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010404145935.00806450@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:59:35 +0200 To: Adam Wildavsky , David Stevenson From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 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 02:01 4/04/01 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 12:52 PM +0100 4/3/01, David Stevenson wrote: >>After the hand was finished, E/W called the director and claimed that had they >>been alerted 2NT properly, East could have doubled 2NT for takeout and >>they could reach 4S. > >On the evidence posted I would deem it not even at all probable that >EW would score 620 on this hand, had they received correct >information. In the ACBL I'd stop at that point - the result stands. >What about in a zone where 12C3 is in effect? I don't think it would >happen as often as one time in 100 here but suppose the hand were >different and the committee judged that given correct information EW >would score +620 3% of the time. Would the committee then have to >award EW 3% of the score for +620 and 97% of the score for +50? AG : well, it could. East would perhaps have doubled 2% of the time, and 4S would have made 25% of that time ; that is 0.5%. Weigh it in favor of the NOS and give them 1% of +620. Of course, this would seem ridiculous, and right so ! I'd love to tell East his appeal was on the verge of the ridiculous. Subliminal message : we have other fish to fry. BTW, surely the sequence happened at other tables (2NT seems quite right in my opinion). Did anybody double with the East hand ? I'd offer 5 to 1 that nobody did. 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 Apr 4 23:25:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34DOws17372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:24:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f34DOqt17368 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:24:53 +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 14knHE-00014R-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:24:49 +0100 Message-ID: <7WFOi6BmAyy6EwmV@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:22:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan References: <002401c0bc99$786866a0$d416073e@pbncomputer> <200104040102.SAA11968@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200104040102.SAA11968@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 <200104040102.SAA11968@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >David Burn wrote: > >> No, they cannot. West wins the ace of spades, declarer plays CA and >> ruffs a club, plays a spade to the queen, ruffs another club and tables >> his cards, conceding only to the jack of spades. > >Aagh, yes, looks like you're right---this is the one combination I >missed. Dammit, so did I miss it. But that's why I lose matches to DALB. OK, I'm now inclined to award 30% of 4S making (on the basis he might double one time in 5 plus a 10% weighting). 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 Apr 4 23:31:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34DUwr17534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:30:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f34DUpt17527 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:30:51 +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 f34DUlM58822 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010404091529.00b24bb0@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, 04 Apr 2001 09:31:49 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) In-Reply-To: References: <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$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 05:28 AM 4/4/01, David wrote: >I really have no idea who thinks L12C3 allows an AC to do anything it >wants. Certainly not the ACs. Certainly not the ACs east of the Atlantic, perhaps. >Of course, L12C3 has nothing to do with >awarding PPs, which an AC has a complete right to do so under L90 and >L93B3. That means they have an unalienable right to issue PPs whether >L12C3 is enabled or not [eg ACBL ACs have a right to issue PPs] so has >nothing to do with L12C3. > > What is beginning to surprise me more and more, Marv, is that your >objections to L12C3 seem to be based on things that do not happen. That's a bit circular. Marv is talking about the ACBL, where such things don't happen only because L12C3 is not enabled. I (and, I suspect, Marv too) have sat on ACs which have been prevented from making very bad rulings only by someone's (often my) insistence that the ruling be justified by reference to some specific law(s). We very much fear losing our principal weapon for the preservation of sanity amidst chaos when "we did equity" becomes a reference to some specific law. I took David to task earlier for a post in which he carelessly referred to using L12C3 "instead of" L12C2, pointing out that the L12C3 requires an adjusted score to be first computed under L12C2, then "varied" to do equity. Now I'm 100% confident that David understands this distinction very well and was merely using loose language. If the average ACBL AC member was as much as 1% as knowledgeable in the subtleties of the law as David is I'm not sure Marv or I would be objecting to the acceptance of 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 Wed Apr 4 23:36:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34DaRu17695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:36:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f34DaJt17686 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:36:20 +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 14knSG-0005gW-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:36:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:34:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L68E References: <3AC9F013.BC24A2A9@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AC9F013.BC24A2A9@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 <3AC9F013.BC24A2A9@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Don't look it up, it's not in your Lawbook. > >But perhaps it should be. > >After all, the WBFLC did decide in Lille on a change in the >Laws, without doing it on paper. > >I am talking of the decision that if there has been a >revoke, doubtful points in a claim are to be decided against >revoker, not claimer. > >I was trying to formulate this in Law-speak (and that would >be L68E) when I came accross something that has not yet been >tought of. > >I hope my example covers all bases : > > AQxxx KJxxx > Ax Kx > xx xx > AJ9x KT8x > >Declarer is in 4Sp on a heart lead. >He plays two rounds of spades and no-one follows to the >second. >He cashes another heart, to make the revoke established. >Now he claims, stating "I give 2 diamond tricks but get one >back from the revoke, and since the TD shall rule against >you, I shall always pick up the queen of clubs, that's 11 + >1 penalty tricks". > I love this one. I think I'm going to rule that there is *not* an element of doubt here. The Claimer had done this intentionally, so he can't claim for that part of the Law. I'd split the scores 50/50. >Perhaps L68E should read : > >"If after a claim has occured, a revoke is discovered, the >normal revoke penalties apply, and all doubtful points go >against revoking side. However, if claimer could have known >at the time of his claim that there had been a revoke (such >as when both opponents have shown out of a suit not fully >accounted for), doubtful points that the revoke has no >bearing on, will remain going against claimer." > -- 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 Apr 5 00:23:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34EMge19479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 00:22:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin1.bigpond.com (juicer13.bigpond.com [139.134.6.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f34EMZt19470 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 00:22:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.51]) by mailin1.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GB9UTW00.649 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 00:27:32 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-214-231.tmns.net.au ([203.54.214.231]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Configurable-MailRouter V2.9c 15/103599); 05 Apr 2001 00:22:30 Message-ID: <008501c0bc49$6488df20$e7d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:21:36 +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 Herman de Wael wrote: >But you miss one point. >If South is only mildly awake, he will be asking about >2He-2Sp-2NT while the tray is on the other side. Is this legal? Although Law 20F1 says "any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation", is it OK with screens to allow explanations to be requested any time? And is this normally done when Screen Regulations are written? 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 Apr 5 01:17:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34FHfQ22201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:17:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f34FHWt22190 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:17:33 +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 RAA26175; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:13:45 +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 RAA20618; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:17:06 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010404172019.00801590@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 17:20:19 +0200 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling In-Reply-To: <008501c0bc49$6488df20$e7d636cb@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 00:21 4/04/01 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >Herman de Wael wrote: >>But you miss one point. >>If South is only mildly awake, he will be asking about >>2He-2Sp-2NT while the tray is on the other side. > > >Is this legal? Although Law 20F1 says "any player, at his own >turn to call, may request a full explanation", is it OK with screens >to allow explanations to be requested any time? AG : yes, it is. This allows a spontaneous alert of screenmate when the tray comes back with a bid which is conventional because of the meaning of the previous sequence. It wins time.It solves the problem of needing to ask the meaning of opp's bid before you can explain your partner's. And is this >normally done when Screen Regulations are written? AG : the problem with asking at the wrong moment is that you transmit UI. With screens, no UI, no problem. How easy ! Would you really expect somebody to call the TD because his screenmate asked when the tray was on the other side ? Regulations or not, how would you, as TD, greet this call, apart from calling the caller ridiculous ? 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 Apr 5 01:26:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34FQ5I22627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:26:05 +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 f34FPvt22616 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:25:58 +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 f34FNHw06678; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:23:17 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:19:15 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:18 AM +0100 4/4/01, David Stevenson wrote: >L21B3 says "When it is too late ...": we are dealing with situations >which were not too late to change the call. If it is not too late to change a call, then 21B3 doesn't apply. I get that much. But Adam's original question was "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?" At the point this question arises, partner has not yet called, so *at this instant* 21B3 does not apply. But if no one calls the TD now, what will happen next is that partner will call - and now it's too late for 21B1, and 21B3 *does* apply. I suppose the pedantic answer to Adam's question is that he has no "right to an adjustment" at the instant in question, so he can't lose it. But that seems to miss the point. Perhaps the question should be reworked: If partner calls, and *then* Adam wakes up and calls the TD, will (should) the TD rule that 21B1 no longer applies (IMO, yes) and that he will not adjust the score under 21B3 *because* Adam didn't call before 21B3 came into effect (I suspect that some TDs at least, will so rule - I'm not so sure they should). Or has my brain turned to mush? 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/AwUBOss9Ar2UW3au93vOEQI4RACg/yTNGPROt6SMKOeFdfwBYPGw5wAAoIzK gsOGr5Qp7XVPWSIYAFNKNTch =UEPj -----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 Apr 5 01:36:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34FZsp23140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:35:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f34FZft23123 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:35:42 +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 f34FX7w09187 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:33:07 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:30:52 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:28 AM +0100 4/4/01, David Stevenson wrote: >What is beginning to surprise me more and more, Marv, is that your >objections to L12C3 seem to be based on things that do not happen. I believe what Marv is saying is that in the ACBL, at some level, ACs (and TDs?) who think 12C2 doesn't adequately compensate the NOS will award the OS a PP *for that reason*, either not bothering to find a justification in Law 90, or finding one solely to justify the PP they want to assign to compensate NOS. Marv appears to believe that a PP, if assigned, should be assigned *for the procedural offense*, regardless whether 12C (or any other law) provides "adequate compensation". If so, I agree with him. I don't know of any examples of TDs or ACs doing this myself Perhaps the thing for Marv to do at this point is to provide one or two, from casebooks or personal experience. If it does happen now in ACBL-land as Marv suggests, then my (admittedly limited) experience with rulings here suggests that if 12C3 is implemented here, the problem will only get worse - and you do not give a chainsaw to someone who can't safely handle a handsaw. 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/AwUBOss/Sr2UW3au93vOEQKh7wCfXit3z1jgSKKj/YvwedPM2xjJhz8AoNn0 8ydBnkfQKv95fityeZ41Qegc =9A6F -----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 Apr 5 03:29:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34HLbc29308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 03:21:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f34HLUt29304 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 03:21:30 +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 14kqv0-000Mhe-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:18:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:16:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) References: <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010404091529.00b24bb0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010404091529.00b24bb0@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 05:28 AM 4/4/01, David wrote: > >>I really have no idea who thinks L12C3 allows an AC to do anything it >>wants. Certainly not the ACs. > >Certainly not the ACs east of the Atlantic, perhaps. > >>Of course, L12C3 has nothing to do with >>awarding PPs, which an AC has a complete right to do so under L90 and >>L93B3. That means they have an unalienable right to issue PPs whether >>L12C3 is enabled or not [eg ACBL ACs have a right to issue PPs] so has >>nothing to do with L12C3. >> >> What is beginning to surprise me more and more, Marv, is that your >>objections to L12C3 seem to be based on things that do not happen. > >That's a bit circular. Marv is talking about the ACBL, where such >things don't happen only because L12C3 is not enabled. > >I (and, I suspect, Marv too) have sat on ACs which have been prevented >from making very bad rulings only by someone's (often my) insistence >that the ruling be justified by reference to some specific law(s). We >very much fear losing our principal weapon for the preservation of >sanity amidst chaos when "we did equity" becomes a reference to some >specific law. > >I took David to task earlier for a post in which he carelessly referred >to using L12C3 "instead of" L12C2, pointing out that the L12C3 requires >an adjusted score to be first computed under L12C2, then "varied" to do >equity. Now I'm 100% confident that David understands this distinction >very well and was merely using loose language. If the average ACBL AC >member was as much as 1% as knowledgeable in the subtleties of the law >as David is I'm not sure Marv or I would be objecting to the acceptance >of L12C3. I have always understood this objection to L12C3, though I do not agree with it. Marv's recent arguments have been different. My proposal for L12C3 in the ACBL is to encompass it with careful regulation, and then try it in Flt C events. For one thing, they do not have ACs currently: for another those are the players who will feel the benefits. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 5 03:33:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34HXfd29346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 03:33:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f34HXZt29342 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 03:33:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f34HYc505715 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002d01c0bd2d$57a54200$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200104031524.IAA32567@mailhub.irvine.com> <002401c0bc99$786866a0$d416073e@pbncomputer> <3.0.6.32.20010404145124.0080aba0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:30:40 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "alain gottcheiner" To: "Marvin L. French" > At 21:38 3/04/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >For the umpteenth time, "the most favorable result that was likely" may > >not be a likely result. Also, "the most unfavorable result that was at > >all probable" may be quite improbable. > > AG : and the best of all possible worlds is impossible. Don't we experiment > it day after day ? > But we are now missing the essential : would East *really* have doubled > 2NT, had he known ? > I answer a firm no. > Me too. I didn't mean to address that aspect of the case, which others have done well enough. I just wish people would not use the "likely" and "probable" of L12C2 out of context. Time and again I hear and read of TDs/ACs, even at the NABC level, saying that they could not determine what the likely (or probable), result would have been absent (or subsequent to) an infraction, and that is not the criteria established 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 Thu Apr 5 04:04:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34I4S100873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 04:04:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f34I4Mt00869 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 04:04:22 +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 LAA27475; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:04:19 -0700 Message-Id: <200104041804.LAA27475@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Apr 2001 21:38:30 PDT." <00c801c0bcc1$3b91e120$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:04:19 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > From: "David Burn" > > > Just to set the record straight, for people concerned about the > > (narrow-sense) "equity" in the position: > > > > Adam wrote: > > > > > > > > Bd. 3 S:K > > > > Dlr:South H:AQJ95 > > > > Vul:EW D:K1082 > > > > C:KQ3 > > > > S:A8653 S:Q1092 > > > > H:863 H:2 > > > > D:A743 D:65 > > > > C:6 C:AJ8752 > > > > S:J74 > > > > H:K1074 > > > > D:QJ9 > > > > C:1094 > > > > > > > > W N E S > > > > P > > > > P 1H P 2H > > > > P 2NT* P 3H** > > > > P 4H all pass > > > > > Really, I don't see 4S making 4 as an "at all probable" result. > > > > Who knows? Declarer will have to play as follows (it is left as an > > exercise for the reader to determine whether such a line would be > > "likely" for declarer or "at all probable" for his opponents): > > David should know better than to use these words out of context. It > furthers the popular misbelief that a result has to be likely in order > to be assigned to the NOS. > > For the umpteenth time, "the most favorable result that was likely" may > not be a likely result. Also, "the most unfavorable result that was at > all probable" may be quite improbable. OK, I'm definitely missing something here. "The largest car that is red" has to be a red car, right? So isn't it a trivial consequence of the English language that "the most favorable result that was likely" has to be a likely result (using whatever definition of "likely" the SO adopts)? -- 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 Apr 5 05:33:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34JWUG02099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 05:32:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f34JWNt02095 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 05:32:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.142.222] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14kt0f-0006yG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 04 Apr 2001 20:32:06 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c0bd3d$dde1ee80$de8e01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200104031524.IAA32567@mailhub.irvine.com> <002401c0bc99$786866a0$d416073e@pbncomputer> <00c801c0bcc1$3b91e120$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:31:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote > > Who knows? Declarer will have to play as follows (it is left as an > > exercise for the reader to determine whether such a line would be > > "likely" for declarer or "at all probable" for his opponents): > > David should know better than to use these words out of context. It > furthers the popular misbelief that a result has to be likely in order > to be assigned to the NOS. When I use quotation marks, Marvin, I do so for a reason. The reason in this case was to indicate that the words "likely" and "probable" were to be interpreted in the context of Law 12C2, and not with their usual English connotations. > For the umpteenth time, "the most favorable result that was likely" may > not be a likely result. Also, "the most unfavorable result that was at > all probable" may be quite improbable. What did it mean? Well, to be quite candid, I don't know, but Elizabeth Anne did. Elizabeth Anne said softly, "Oh. Thank you, Jennifer. Now I know." (A A Milne) 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 Apr 5 08:28:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34MQMH21492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:26:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f34MQFt21452 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:26:16 +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 SAA28074 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA26776 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:26:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104042226.SAA26776@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I have no problem with either adjusting solely against the > side that gave MI, or just giving them a PP: but we must not adjust in > favour of NOS who seek to gain an advantage by not following the Laws. This seems reasonable if the NOS are BLML readers or otherwise know their rights, but would you apply it to inexperienced players? I bet it would never occur to most that they have any right to change their call once LHO has called. In fact, even quite experienced players may not be aware of the rules in this situation. (Even some TD's don't know the correct rules here!) While the principle seems reasonable, it also seems to me that there ought to be a fairly high burden of proof that the NOS really are "seek(ing) to gain an advantage by not following the Laws" before one denies them redress. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 5 09:12:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f34NCdx08081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:12:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f34NCVt08043 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:12:32 +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 QAA02310; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:12:26 -0700 Message-Id: <200104042312.QAA02310@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, 04 Apr 2001 18:26:11 EDT." <200104042226.SAA26776@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:12:27 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > I have no problem with either adjusting solely against the > > side that gave MI, or just giving them a PP: but we must not adjust in > > favour of NOS who seek to gain an advantage by not following the Laws. > > This seems reasonable if the NOS are BLML readers or otherwise know > their rights, but would you apply it to inexperienced players? I bet it > would never occur to most that they have any right to change their call > once LHO has called. In fact, even quite experienced players may not be > aware of the rules in this situation. (Even some TD's don't know the > correct rules here!) Right. Also, it's wrong to assume that BLML readers "know their rights", as you say. I'm a BLML reader (bet you already figured that out), and I seem to do fairly well in carrying on an argument on BLML---but to tell the truth, I cheat. Yes, I cheat! I actually look at the Law book before I spout off about some Law matter. I don't do it from memory. I don't have that ability at the table. (Remember the Laws in detail? Ha ha, I can barely remember which spot my partner played to the previous trick!) In fact, in the actual situation that occurred in Kansas City, I simply did not remember the rule that gave me the right to change my call at that point, once I heard the right explanation of the bid. I thought that the only possible recourse would be an adjustment if there was damage, so I didn't see anything wrong with waiting until after the hand to see if I thought we had been damaged, and then calling the TD only if I thought we had. I probably could have remembered it if I had thought about it for some time, but partner certainly would have passed by the time I remembered L21B1; and in any case I didn't see a reason to spend mental energy trying to remember the Law, especially when it takes all my mental energy just to figure out how to play bridge. -- 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 Apr 5 10:17:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f350H9425711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:17:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f350H2t25707 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:17:03 +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 14kxSH-0004Bh-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:16:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:30:01 +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> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >At 10:18 AM +0100 4/4/01, David Stevenson wrote: >>L21B3 says "When it is too late ...": we are dealing with situations >>which were not too late to change the call. > >If it is not too late to change a call, then 21B3 doesn't apply. I >get that much. But Adam's original question was "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?" At the >point this question arises, partner has not yet called, so *at this >instant* 21B3 does not apply. But if no one calls the TD now, what >will happen next is that partner will call - and now it's too late >for 21B1, and 21B3 *does* apply. > >I suppose the pedantic answer to Adam's question is that he has no >"right to an adjustment" at the instant in question, so he can't lose >it. But that seems to miss the point. > >Perhaps the question should be reworked: If partner calls, and *then* >Adam wakes up and calls the TD, will (should) the TD rule that 21B1 >no longer applies (IMO, yes) and that he will not adjust the score >under 21B3 *because* Adam didn't call before 21B3 came into effect (I >suspect that some TDs at least, will so rule - I'm not so sure they >should). > >Or has my brain turned to mush? L9B1 says that the Director *must* be called. L21B1 allows the call to be changed. As far as I am concerned when someone does not call the TD L21C3 does not apply because it was not too late. It is only a breach of the Laws that has made it "too late" and I am not going to give out bonuses to players for not following the Laws. However, I am beginning to like the idea of adjusting for the other side only: they were also required to call the TD, of course. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 5 12:31:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f352V9J25948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:31:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f352V3t25944 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:31:04 +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 f352Rrw07796 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:27:53 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:26:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > L9B1 says that the Director *must* be called. L21B1 allows the call >to be changed. > > As far as I am concerned when someone does not call the TD L21C3 does >not apply because it was not too late. It is only a breach of the Laws >that has made it "too late" and I am not going to give out bonuses to >players for not following the Laws. > > However, I am beginning to like the idea of adjusting for the other >side only: they were also required to call the TD, of course. Wait a minute. Who drew attention to the irregularity? If nobody did, then 9B1 isn't applicable. 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/AwUBOsvY4L2UW3au93vOEQLcxgCg0LmvMuskeaPGOPoCwYVOc5+f3MYAnRPO qomR+sROs7G72woNa5dR0NEV =dmmI -----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 Apr 5 17:58:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f357vxD27762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:57:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f357vqt27758 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:57:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f357vhj10237 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:57:43 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:57 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] L68E 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: <3AC9F013.BC24A2A9@village.uunet.be> HDW wrote: > I hope my example covers all bases : > > AQxxx KJxxx > Ax Kx > xx xx > AJ9x KT8x > > Declarer is in 4Sp on a heart lead. > He plays two rounds of spades and no-one follows to the > second. > He cashes another heart, to make the revoke established. > Now he claims, stating "I give 2 diamond tricks but get one > back from the revoke, and since the TD shall rule against > you, I shall always pick up the queen of clubs, that's 11 + > 1 penalty tricks". Do we accept it is a doubtful point which defender will win the diamond tricks? I think we should, so at that point the defender who didn't revoke is assumed to be on lead - he is endplayed and, of necessity, concedes a ruff and discard (or cheap club trick). Still a club loser you say. Declarer now plays a low trump from each hand endplaying the revoker - now the club loser must disappear. The second endplay is free since it converts a one trick revoke into a two trick revoke! Ok maybe the claim statement was slightly flawed but I wrote this more because of the curiosity value of a non trick conceding throw-in. I can see RR pulling off such a coup in a grand when TT revokes and Karapet has a cashing Ace. Imagine, if you will, the expression on HHs face as his partner triumphs again. As to the legal wording I suggest "doubtful points arising from the revoke will be decided against the revoker rather than the claimer". I'm fairly sure all of us would agree that e.g. the location of an unrelated card was not a point arising from the revoke. 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 Apr 5 18:09:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35892D27788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:09:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3588tt27782 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:08:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-249.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.249]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3588nt05584 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:08:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ACB5D77.D6A0A377@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 19:44:23 +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] L63 and L69 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk L63A3 includes "acquiesces" (which makes the revoke established). According to L69A, acquiescence occurs when there is no complaint before the next deal. So L63A3 could just as easily be read without the acquiesces, can't 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 Apr 5 18:09:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35898527793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:09:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3588xt27787 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:08:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-249.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.249]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3588st05684 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:08:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ACB5F8C.F4CEB6B7@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 19:53:16 +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] L68E References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010404083430.00b27b40@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 11:45 AM 4/3/01, Herman wrote: > > >Perhaps L68E should read : > > > >"If after a claim has occured, a revoke is discovered, the > >normal revoke penalties apply, and all doubtful points go > >against revoking side. However, if claimer could have known > >at the time of his claim that there had been a revoke (such > >as when both opponents have shown out of a suit not fully > >accounted for), doubtful points that the revoke has no > >bearing on, will remain going against claimer." > > The problem is that any time both opponents show out with fewer than 13 > cards in the suit unaccounted for, claimer "could have known... that > there had been a revoke" had they been counting, creating a situation > in which one could lose out by making what is now a proper claim if one > hasn't been counting or has counted incorrectly. Thus the time-honored > practice of declarer playing top trumps until both opponents show out > and then going about their business becomes one which may cost tricks > in this particular situation. This is not necessarily bad, but would, > I think, require other, compensating, changes in the laws. Would we > really want, for example, to apply L70C when both opponents have shown > out of trump? I guess some of us would -- the same some of us who > think the defender in that other thread made an egregious error by > playing partner for the DA after declarer showed out of diamonds > because he "could have known", had he been counting, that declarer must > have revoked -- but I am not among them. > Well Eric, but this declarer who can't count should not profit from a claim which is faulty as well, now should he. The situation you describe is as convoluted as this : A declarer fails to count to 13 and fails to see that there is a revoke. He then claims. And his claim is faulty too - in some way unrelated to the revoke. You would hesitate to rule against this lunatic ? And adapt your laws to cope with the situation ? While at the next table some very clever man is doing exactly the same thing, and trying to gains some tricks by his cleverness ? I don't think your fears are justified. I am plugging a hole before it opens up. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 5 18:41:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f358fBt08537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:41:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f358f4t08500 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:41:05 +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, 5 Apr 2001 01:41:37 -0700 Message-ID: <006f01c0bdac$1db994e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200104041804.LAA27475@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:35:28 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: > > > > > For the umpteenth time, "the most favorable result that was likely" may > > not be a likely result. Also, "the most unfavorable result that was at > > all probable" may be quite improbable. > > OK, I'm definitely missing something here. "The largest car that is > red" has to be a red car, right? So isn't it a trivial consequence of > the English language that "the most favorable result that was likely" > has to be a likely result (using whatever definition of "likely" the > SO adopts)? > Adam, if I ride my new bicycle on city streets tomorrow, what is the worst thing that is likely to happen to me? The answer is I could get killed, but I don't think it is likely. Idiomatic expressions cannot be subjected to grammatical analysis. They mean what they mean. For L12C2, you figure out a reasonable set of possible results, not an unlikely set, but a reasonable one. Then you pick the one most favorable to the NOS as their assigned score. That is the most favorable result that was likely. I realize Rich Colker has a slightly different opinion on this matter, but even Rich isn't perfect. 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 Apr 5 18:44:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f358iPt09686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:44:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium (ruthenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f358iIt09647 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:44:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.146.231] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14l5NF-0005ou-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:44:14 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c0bdac$7c15c540$e79201d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:43:25 +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: > L9B1 says that the Director *must* be called. L21B1 allows the call > to be changed. > > As far as I am concerned when someone does not call the TD L21C3 does > not apply because it was not too late. It is only a breach of the Laws > that has made it "too late" and I am not going to give out bonuses to > players for not following the Laws. Yes, you are. You are giving the side that misinformed its opponents, thereby breaking Laws 40B and 75A, a bonus because both they and their opponents failed to call the director. You appear to me to be asserting (as was asserted in the Brighton case) that if a pair fails to call the director as soon as misinformation comes to light, they are no longer entitled to redress from damage consequent upon the misinformation. This is not so. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 5 18:56:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f358uMw13840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:56:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f358uGt13805 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:56:17 +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, 5 Apr 2001 01:56:49 -0700 Message-ID: <007a01c0bdae$3db364e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200104031524.IAA32567@mailhub.irvine.com> <002401c0bc99$786866a0$d416073e@pbncomputer> <00c801c0bcc1$3b91e120$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001301c0bd3d$dde1ee80$de8e01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:53:41 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > Marvin wrote > > > > Who knows? Declarer will have to play as follows (it is left as an > > > exercise for the reader to determine whether such a line would be > > > "likely" for declarer or "at all probable" for his opponents): > > > > David should know better than to use these words out of context. It > > furthers the popular misbelief that a result has to be likely in order > > to be assigned to the NOS. > > When I use quotation marks, Marvin, I do so for a reason. The reason in > this case was to indicate that the words "likely" and "probable" were to > be interpreted in the context of Law 12C2, and not with their usual > English connotations. I knew what the quotes intended, and should have said something to that effect. Something like: When David puts quotes on those words, it means they are not intended in the usual sense, but in the sense applicable to them in L12C2. I say this because many will not pick up on that fact, thinking he is merely indicating that those words come from L12C2. > > For the umpteenth time, "the most favorable result that was likely" > may > > not be a likely result. Also, "the most unfavorable result that was at > > all probable" may be quite improbable. > 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 Apr 5 19:00:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3590CC15127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:00:12 +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 f35905t15086 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:00:06 +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, 5 Apr 2001 02:00:39 -0700 Message-ID: <008101c0bdae$c66152c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200104042226.SAA26776@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:59:47 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote; > > From: David Stevenson > > I have no problem with either adjusting solely against the > > side that gave MI, or just giving them a PP: but we must not adjust in > > favour of NOS who seek to gain an advantage by not following the Laws. > > This seems reasonable if the NOS are BLML readers or otherwise know > their rights, but would you apply it to inexperienced players? I bet it > would never occur to most that they have any right to change their call > once LHO has called. In fact, even quite experienced players may not be > aware of the rules in this situation. (Even some TD's don't know the > correct rules here!) > > While the principle seems reasonable, it also seems to me that there > ought to be a fairly high burden of proof that the NOS really are > "seek(ing) to gain an advantage by not following the Laws" before one > denies them redress. > Someone tell me what law is not being followed when I choose not to call attention to an irregularity, for whatever reason. 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 Apr 5 19:06:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3596A416209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:06:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3595dt16205 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:05:39 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:02:41 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: [BLML] L63 and L69 Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:02:26 +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 Herman De Wael wrote: >L63A3 includes "acquiesces" (which makes the revoke >established). > >According to L69A, acquiescence occurs when there is no >complaint before the next deal. > >So L63A3 could just as easily be read without the >acquiesces, can't it ? Well, actually we had a discussion a few weeks ago about this very subject. The question boils down to this: If somebody revokes, and then somebody claims that same trick, at which point does the revoke become established? Suppose that South is declarer in some contract, West revokes and in the next trick South claims (so the revoke would not be established if West woke up at that time). At the time everybody agrees with the claim. Is the revoke now established? But what if East complains before the next deal? Does the revoke then become "unestablished" again? -- 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 Apr 5 20:29:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35ASjs01701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 20:28:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35ASYt01647 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 20:28:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-225.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.225]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f35ASUt11593 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:28:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:47:54 +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] Timing of TD call References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@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 Sorry David, as usual I have found something to disagree with you about. Let me start by saying that I believe the ruling that you give and defend to be absolutely correct, if not for the correct reasons. David Stevenson wrote: > > > L9B1 says that the Director *must* be called. L21B1 allows the call > to be changed. > Sorry David, if the infraction is not "drawn attention to", the TD does not HAVE to be called. In the case that I alluded to, the opponent having no idea that the non-alert was wrong, the infraction was not even "noticed". In such a case, there is no "call based upon misinformation" so there is no L21B1 right to a change. > As far as I am concerned when someone does not call the TD L21C3 does > not apply because it was not too late. It is only a breach of the Laws > that has made it "too late" and I am not going to give out bonuses to > players for not following the Laws. > I do not believe that you need a "breach of the laws" to rule it too late. The L21B1 right exists, whether the TD is called or not. Of course no player should try to exercise the right without calling the TD, but if a player chooses not to exercise this right, by means of not drawing attention to the infraction, and by not calling the TD, he has done nothing wrong. I feel we must rule this as "letting the time period for the L21B1 right lapse by not asking for a chance to change your call". > However, I am beginning to like the idea of adjusting for the other > side only: they were also required to call the TD, of course. > In a sense, they are. In another sense, they are not. They are not required to slow down play by insisting on a TD coming when their opponents don't want the TD. Barring intimidation of course. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 5 20:29:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35ASmm01715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 20:28:49 +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 f35ASat01658 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 20:28:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-225.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.225]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f35ASWt11599 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:28:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ACC31E1.A09FB7AD@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:50:41 +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] Timing of TD call References: <200104042226.SAA26776@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: > > > This seems reasonable if the NOS are BLML readers or otherwise know > their rights, but would you apply it to inexperienced players? I bet it > would never occur to most that they have any right to change their call > once LHO has called. In fact, even quite experienced players may not be > aware of the rules in this situation. (Even some TD's don't know the > correct rules here!) > > While the principle seems reasonable, it also seems to me that there > ought to be a fairly high burden of proof that the NOS really are > "seek(ing) to gain an advantage by not following the Laws" before one > denies them redress. The problem remains whether they know it or not. By not changing their call at the time they are allowed to do so, but giving them adjustment afterwards, they are having two bites at the cherry. The laws are deliberately written so to make this impossible. If you are denying redress to a reader of blml, then why should you give redress to some poor slob who has been tought one thing : "call the TD" and did not do that ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 5 22:19:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35CJ8o11380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:19:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35CIqt11308 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:18:53 +1000 (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 14l8iq-0002lQ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:18:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:55:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call References: <200104042226.SAA26776@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200104042312.QAA02310@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200104042312.QAA02310@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes >I probably could have remembered it if I had thought about it for >some time, but partner certainly would have passed by the time I >remembered L21B1; and in any case I didn't see a reason to spend >mental energy trying to remember the Law, especially when it takes all >my mental energy just to figure out how to play bridge. All I ask the players to do is to remember the contents of L9B1: other Laws may be left to the Director. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 5 22:19:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35CJ9Q11394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:19:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35CIrt11312 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:18:54 +1000 (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 14l8ip-0002lN-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:18:47 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:52:07 +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> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >> L9B1 says that the Director *must* be called. L21B1 allows the call >>to be changed. >> >> As far as I am concerned when someone does not call the TD L21C3 does >>not apply because it was not too late. It is only a breach of the Laws >>that has made it "too late" and I am not going to give out bonuses to >>players for not following the Laws. >> >> However, I am beginning to like the idea of adjusting for the other >>side only: they were also required to call the TD, of course. > >Wait a minute. Who drew attention to the irregularity? If nobody did, >then 9B1 isn't applicable. Someone did. This is a thread about what happens after attention is drawn to an irregularity. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 5 22:19:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35CJIX11427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:19:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35CIwt11348 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:19:04 +1000 (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 14l8iq-0002lO-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:18:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:53:12 +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> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001201c0bdac$7c15c540$e79201d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001201c0bdac$7c15c540$e79201d5@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: > >> L9B1 says that the Director *must* be called. L21B1 allows the call >> to be changed. >> >> As far as I am concerned when someone does not call the TD L21C3 >does >> not apply because it was not too late. It is only a breach of the >Laws >> that has made it "too late" and I am not going to give out bonuses to >> players for not following the Laws. > >Yes, you are. You are giving the side that misinformed its opponents, >thereby breaking Laws 40B and 75A, a bonus because both they and their >opponents failed to call the director. You appear to me to be asserting >(as was asserted in the Brighton case) that if a pair fails to call the >director as soon as misinformation comes to light, they are no longer >entitled to redress from damage consequent upon the misinformation. This >is not so. Well, the Law says it is so. But I certainly am coming round to the view that we should be dealing with the other side as well, for the reason you give here. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 5 22:19:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35CJDi11409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:19:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35CIst11318 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:18:57 +1000 (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 14l8iq-0002lP-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:18:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:54:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call References: <200104042226.SAA26776@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200104042226.SAA26776@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> I have no problem with either adjusting solely against the >> side that gave MI, or just giving them a PP: but we must not adjust in >> favour of NOS who seek to gain an advantage by not following the Laws. > >This seems reasonable if the NOS are BLML readers or otherwise know >their rights, but would you apply it to inexperienced players? I bet it >would never occur to most that they have any right to change their call >once LHO has called. In fact, even quite experienced players may not be >aware of the rules in this situation. (Even some TD's don't know the >correct rules here!) > >While the principle seems reasonable, it also seems to me that there >ought to be a fairly high burden of proof that the NOS really are >"seek(ing) to gain an advantage by not following the Laws" before one >denies them redress. If we fail to apply the Laws, and give people that break the Laws a particular advantage there by, they will never learn to follow the Laws. We have to educate people in the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 5 23:13:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35DDHG21302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:13:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35DDAt21272 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:13:11 +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 f35DD6263351 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010405084750.00b28a20@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, 05 Apr 2001 09:14:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] L68E 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 03:57 AM 4/5/01, twm wrote: >As to the legal wording I suggest "doubtful points arising from the >revoke >will be decided against the revoker rather than the claimer". I'm fairly >sure all of us would agree that e.g. the location of an unrelated card >was >not a point arising from the revoke. But it could be, couldn't it? The revoke could cause declarer to miscount the hand perforce, and cause him to lose a finesse which he takes through the hand he "knows" to be longer in the suit, but isn't. Or even cause him to lose a finesse which remains apparently odds-against even after the miscount, but by sufficiently shorter odds to make for a worthwhile "anti-field" shot for a declarer looking to pick up matchpoints against the field. We must allow for the possibility that the claimer's "guess" as to the location of the missing card was somehow affected. Even then, that would put the burden of proof on the claimer, which means that in identical situations we may give more tricks to a more articulate and better informed "bridge litigator". I understand what we're looking to do here, but there's a can of worms we might be better off not to open. I'm not concerned, as Herman is, with the problem that a player who (in addition to noticing that an opponent showed out of a suit he was expected to follow to) has enough confidence in his count to "know" that there has been a revoke and subsequently finds some devious way to take advantage of it by way of a subsequent claim. This would be much much rarer than, say, maneuvering the play so that the revoker takes his side's remaining trick with a card he could have legally played on the revoke trick, increasing the revoke penalty from one to two tricks, which we consider to be a legitimate tactic. Admittedly, my sympathies lie with those who believe the laws should be considerably harsher on players who revoke than on those who make technically flawed claims because we should want to discourage revoking but encourage claiming. 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 Apr 5 23:23:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35DMe224622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:22:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from izanami.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@[137.195.52.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f35DMXt24590 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:22:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from gateway-brahma ([137.195.52.27] helo=brahma.cee.hw.ac.uk ident=exim) by izanami.cee.hw.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 14l9iT-0006Hi-00; Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:22:25 +0100 Received: from idc by brahma.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 14l9iP-0004FS-00; Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:22:21 +0100 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: [BLML] L68E To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Tim West-meads's message of Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:57 +0100 (BST) Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:22:21 +0100 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3AC9F013.BC24A2A9@village.uunet.be> HDW wrote: > > I hope my example covers all bases : > > > > AQxxx KJxxx > > Ax Kx > > xx xx > > AJ9x KT8x > > > > Declarer is in 4Sp on a heart lead. > > He plays two rounds of spades and no-one follows to the > > second. > > He cashes another heart, to make the revoke established. > > Now he claims, stating "I give 2 diamond tricks but get one > > back from the revoke, and since the TD shall rule against > > you, I shall always pick up the queen of clubs, that's 11 + > > 1 penalty tricks". [Tim] > Do we accept it is a doubtful point which defender will win the diamond > tricks? I think we should, so at that point the defender who didn't > revoke is assumed to be on lead - he is endplayed and, of necessity, > concedes a ruff and discard (or cheap club trick). Still a club loser you > say. Declarer now plays a low trump from each hand endplaying the revoker > - now the club loser must disappear. The second endplay is free since it > converts a one trick revoke into a two trick revoke! I realize this is a digression from a serious discussion but I couldn't resist pointing out that according to some authorities in this mailing list, there is no guaranteed endplay by leading a small trump from both hands. The defender who has already revoked in trump can just revoke again and of course, according to some, there is no penalty for further revokes in the suit. --- 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 Thu Apr 5 23:25:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35DOxv25434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:24:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35DOrt25400 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:24:54 +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 f35DOn541480 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:24:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010405092116.00ab64e0@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, 05 Apr 2001 09:25:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan In-Reply-To: <006f01c0bdac$1db994e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <200104041804.LAA27475@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 04:35 AM 4/5/01, Marvin wrote: >From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > OK, I'm definitely missing something here. "The largest car that is > > red" has to be a red car, right? So isn't it a trivial consequence of > > the English language that "the most favorable result that was likely" > > has to be a likely result (using whatever definition of "likely" the > > SO adopts)? > >Adam, if I ride my new bicycle on city streets tomorrow, what is the >worst thing that is likely to happen to me? The answer is I could get >killed, but I don't think it is likely. > >Idiomatic expressions cannot be subjected to grammatical analysis. They >mean what they mean. > >For L12C2, you figure out a reasonable set of possible results, not an >unlikely set, but a reasonable one. Then you pick the one most favorable >to the NOS as their assigned score. That is the most favorable result >that was likely. American Heritage Dictionary: "likely... 3. Within the realm of credibility...; plausible". Does that help? 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 Apr 6 00:10:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35EAM811551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:10:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35EAEt11504 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:10:15 +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 JAA29015 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:12:26 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010405090926.007c1100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:09:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010403131611.00b1cda0@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010403093016.00a93680@127.0.0.1> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010403093016.00a93680@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 01:52 PM 4/3/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 11:10 AM 4/3/01, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau writes >> >> >So even if we were to reach the nirvana in which every committee >> >applied L12C2 in exactly the same way, introducing L12C3 would give >> >them the opportunity to introduce new inconsistencies. And I would >> >argue further that we have a far better chance to provide clear >> >guidelines and educate our committees to apply them correctly if we >> >stick to the interpretation of "likely" and "at all probable" and don't >> >have to worry about doing the same for "do equity", which is a lot more >> >nebulous a concept. >> >> Sure, it is easier: it is just less fair and leads to much greater >>injustices. > >No, it is more fair and leads to "much greater injustices". A penalty >is "fair" if it is known to potential transgressors and is applied >uniformly and consistently, if everyone knows that "if they do the >crime they'll do the time". Whether it is also "an injustice" depends This is one possible meaning of 'fair'--it is not the one I would use. For example, if my state were to institute a law saying that speeders would be summarily shot, I would not regard it as 'fair' even if it were universally proclaimed and enforced. It is not 'fair', in my sense of the word, to be shot for speeding. But let us use your own sense of the word, which is also reasonable. >on what it is. If one AC gives a pair 20% too much while the AC in the >next room is giving a pair that committed the same infraction in the >same situation 60% too much, the two pairs will, on average, have been >treated more "justly" but less fairly than if both ACs gave the same >60% too much. Marv argues that players are better served, and would >much prefer, being treated fairly than by being given adjustments that >will sometimes, but only some of the time and only for some of the >transgressors, be more appropriately in proportion to the severity of >their infraction, and I agree. I disagree--I would rather be given something that approximates equity even if I know that another AC might make a slightly different approximation, than be given something vastly different than equity even if I knew everyone in my place would get the same. But that's just me-- maybe my tastes are peculiar. >We therefore believe that we best serve our players by taking the >easier road to fairness, by making our rulings fair first, by not >handicapping ourselves with the less important goal of achieving >perfect "justice" (AKA perfect "equity") at the same time. Why not argue the reverse--we have utterly bungled 'fairness', so that knowledgeable players are aware that what they get from one committee might not be what the get from another. Given that we're nowhere close to that goal, why not try to be just? I'm serious about this. Suppose there's a MI case where we think that there's a 30% chance that the NOS would have bid to a better contract absent the MI. If this case goes to an ACBL AC today, the result could very well be 'result stands', or it could be 'roll back both sides to the better result', or it could be 'result stands but we're allowing a PP for the MI' or it could be ten other things. Empower L12C3 and there will be an equal or even slightly greater randomness in the ruling, but at least there will be more rulings that end up somewhere in the vicinity of 70% result stands, 30% better contract. But, again, there is the theoretical issue still unresolved. As in the case of claim rulings, I would rather have TD's and AC's try to be just to the best of their abilities even if it means they will be less 'fair', then to have them be 'fair' but unjust. 'Fairness', in your sense of the word, has never struck me as a particularly important thing. [Granted, I prefer fairness to unfairness _all other things being equal_.] >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 Apr 6 00:24:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35ENp016285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:23:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35ENit16253 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:23:45 +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 f35EEvw04527; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:13:30 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Someone did. This is a thread about what happens after attention is >drawn to an irregularity. Not according to Herman it isn't. I suppose now I'm going to have to go back and read the whole thread again. God, I feel old. :-( 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/AwUBOsx/7r2UW3au93vOEQLJbQCg4kT09wo4YzLRlTl0toy87DV9aZ4An1+7 X1vlOrAcgyV/dQwzASugpeKh =KYrG -----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 Apr 6 00:50:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35Eo8O25512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:50:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f35Eo1t25474 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:50:02 +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 KAA15800 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:49:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA03678 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:49:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:49:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104051449.KAA03678@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: Herman De Wael > If you are denying redress to a reader of blml, then why > should you give redress to some poor slob who has been > tought one thing : "call the TD" and did not do that ? As Adam has explained better than I can, it is abnormal to call the TD for every missed alert. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 6 00:52:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35EqSs26303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:52:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35EqLt26265 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:52:21 +1000 (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 14lB7G-000MNO-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:52:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:50:40 +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> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3ACC313A.B523E94@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 >Sorry David, as usual I have found something to disagree >with you about. > >Let me start by saying that I believe the ruling that you >give and defend to be absolutely correct, if not for the >correct reasons. > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> L9B1 says that the Director *must* be called. L21B1 allows the call >> to be changed. >> > >Sorry David, if the infraction is not "drawn attention to", >the TD does not HAVE to be called. >In the case that I alluded to, the opponent having no idea >that the non-alert was wrong, the infraction was not even >"noticed". Ok, but this thread started with a case that included the following conversation: > > 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. All my comments have been on this case or its type. Now if you wish to say that I am wrong because totally different cases with totally different facts should be ruled in a totally different way, then feel free. But I do not think it is helpful. And please do not say I am wrong because you would rule differently on different cases with different facts. Only say I am wrong, please, when you disagree with how I handle the case we are discussing. I do agree with you that when L9B1 does not cover a situation then L9B1 does not cover 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 Apr 6 01:31:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35FV1509802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 01:31:01 +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 f35FUst09762 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 01:30:54 +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 RAA19863; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:30:19 +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 RAA03316; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:30:26 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010405173340.00809aa0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 17:33:40 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010405092116.00ab64e0@127.0.0.1> References: <006f01c0bdac$1db994e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <200104041804.LAA27475@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:25 5/04/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 04:35 AM 4/5/01, Marvin wrote: >> >> > OK, I'm definitely missing something here. "The largest car that is >> > red" has to be a red car, right? So isn't it a trivial consequence of >> > the English language that "the most favorable result that was likely" >> > has to be a likely result (using whatever definition of "likely" the >> > SO adopts)? > >American Heritage Dictionary: "likely... 3. Within the realm of >credibility...; plausible". Does that help? > AG : may I remember you, subtle grammarians, that according to the great S.J. Simon, the best result possible and the best possible result are not the same thing, and that one of those two is not possible at all. So, I'm with Adam here, in considering that, in the noble game of bridge if not in the English language, the most favorable result that was likely should not necessarily be one of the liely results. 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 Apr 6 01:55:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35FtEu18428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 01:55:14 +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 f35Ft7t18396 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 01:55:08 +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 IAA17432; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:55:05 -0700 Message-Id: <200104051555.IAA17432@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Apr 2001 01:35:28 PDT." <006f01c0bdac$1db994e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 08:55:05 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > Marvin French wrote: > > > > > > > > For the umpteenth time, "the most favorable result that was likely" > may > > > not be a likely result. Also, "the most unfavorable result that was > at > > > all probable" may be quite improbable. > > > > OK, I'm definitely missing something here. "The largest car that is > > red" has to be a red car, right? So isn't it a trivial consequence of > > the English language that "the most favorable result that was likely" > > has to be a likely result (using whatever definition of "likely" the > > SO adopts)? > > > Adam, if I ride my new bicycle on city streets tomorrow, what is the > worst thing that is likely to happen to me? The answer is I could get > killed, but I don't think it is likely. I see your point, but I don't think it's quite the same thing . . . The phrase "worst thing that is likely to happen" is an idiom, but the phrase used in the Law book is different. It's similar, but to me, the absence of the words "to happen" prevents me from reading the Law phrase as an idiom. I can't really explain why one phrase looks like an idiom to me and the other doesn't. However, we should also note that the fact that the same Law uses the phrases "The most favorable result that was likely" and "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable"; to me, the parallelism between these two phrases indicates that the word "likely" was deliberately chosen and has significance, as opposed to being just two syllables in an idiom. I think we're all agreed that "likely" doesn't necessarily mean what it would mean in normal usage; in the ACBL, "likely" means having a probability of 1/3 or higher. I also thought it was clear that DB was using the terms "likely" and "at all probable" within that context. > Idiomatic expressions cannot be subjected to grammatical analysis. They > mean what they mean. > > For L12C2, you figure out a reasonable set of possible results, not an > unlikely set, but a reasonable one. Then you pick the one most favorable > to the NOS as their assigned score. That is the most favorable result > that was likely. Yes, that's my interpretation also. We seem to be arguing about something we agree about. That seems to happen to me a lot on BLML. :-) :-( > I realize Rich Colker has a slightly different opinion on this matter, > but even Rich isn't perfect. He seems to be reading the phrase in the Lawbook as "the most likely result", which is understandable if you're careless and read it too quickly. -- 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 Apr 6 02:10:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35G9vH23599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:09:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f35G9ot23570 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:09:51 +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 MAA20024 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA03832 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:09:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104051609.MAA03832@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 > Ok, but this thread started with a case that included the following > conversation: > > > > 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." I think we were discussing both a case like this one and also a case where the conversation includes only the first two lines. No wonder there is confusion. > All my comments have been on this case or its type. OK. Most others have been commenting on the other type of case, and the distinction has not always been clear. The original case was Brighton #3, but it isn't clear to me which category it falls under. It was ruled as if 9B1 applies, but there is no indication in the TD "statement of facts" that suggests attention was drawn to the failure to alert. In all cases, we are discussing the call that is still eligible to be changed if the TD is summoned in time. > I do agree with you that when L9B1 does not cover a situation then > L9B1 does not cover it. OK. Let's try to keep the distinction clear. In the "9B1 applies" case, where attention has been drawn, _both_ sides have the obligation to call the TD. David's initial position was that he would not adjust for the call that could have been changed. Later he said that he might adjust for the OS only. I am not sure anyone has disagreed with him, but certainly there are grounds to do so. No one has mentioned L11A, for example, which would be the normal reason for failing to apply L21B3. Yes, we all know 21B1 cannot apply, but we need a specific reason to forfeit the NOS' rights under 21B3, and 11A is the only thing I can find. So the real question is whether 11A should apply or not. A case can certainly be made for either view. In the "9B1 does not apply" case, where the MI has been corrected but no one has drawn attention to the failure to alert, it isn't clear who has an obligation to call the TD. It appears to me that the NOS has no obligation, but the OS may under L75D1. David has not commented on this case. Several other people seem to think that an adjustment should be allowed. Let me propose the following scheme to cover both cases: always adjust for the OS, who have given MI and then failed to call the TD. For the NOS, find out if attention was drawn to the failure to alert. If not, adjust for them too, unless you are certain they are knowledgeable about the Laws and have wilfully failed to call the TD. If attention was drawn, then the NOS should have known to call the TD. In that case L11A denies them an adjustment. This means that for most players on the NOS, it will be beneficial _not_ to draw attention to the failure to alert. I don't mind that. It is quite often beneficial to the NOS not to call attention to irregularities, so why should this type of case be different? Comments? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 6 02:29:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35GTmc25088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:29:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35GTgt25084 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:29:42 +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 JAA18063; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:29:40 -0700 Message-Id: <200104051629.JAA18063@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, 05 Apr 2001 15:50:40 BST." Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:29:39 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Ok, but this thread started with a case that included the following > conversation: > > > > 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. > > All my comments have been on this case or its type. Actually, I'm the one who started the thread, and there wasn't any question about the failure to alert---until later. My apologies for any confusion. To keep us from continuing to argue about two different situations, I'll re-present the actual case as it happened in Kansas City: Matchpoints. Opps were V, I think we were NV. I don't remember who dealt. LHO opened 1NT (15-17). Partner passed. RHO bid 2H. There was no alert or announcement (transfers must be announced in the ACBL). LHO's convention card was clearly visible, so I glanced at it and noticed that the "2H transfer" box was not checked. I then bid 3D, figuring that if LHO was limited and RHO was making a drop-dead bid, partner had to have something, so I thought it was pretty safe. LHO then bid 3S. Partner then asked LHO what the 2H bid was, and LHO responded that it was a transfer. At that point, partner and I both knew (of course) that there was a failure to announce, and I also knew that LHO's CC was mismarked. Since I based my call on the MI that 2H was natural and nonforcing, I thought there could be damage, although the probability of damage was reduced since LHO's 3S bid took me off the hook. Since I didn't remember L21B1, I didn't see the point in saying anything at this point; I thought I could call the TD later if there was damage. So aside from the question about 2H and the response, nobody said anything at that point. Partner passed; so did RHO and I. At some point after that, however, we did draw attention to the infraction. It might have been when dummy came down (with five spades), although I don't remember exactly. Partner said something to the effect that the 2H bid should have been announced. I added that it wasn't marked on the CC, either. LHO admitted this was a mistake, and she fixed her CC. We called the director at that point. The director heard the facts, and then ruled that nothing could be done because the infraction "had come to light" (the director's words) when LHO told partner 2H was a transfer and I would have had the opportunity to change my call at that point. As I recall, the director said or implied that no adjustment would be possible, either. We got 3S two tricks, so there was no damage anyway. If it matters: if the TD had been called before the 3S call, I would have changed my 3D call to pass. If the TD had been called after the 3S call but before partner's pass, I would not have changed my call and given the opponents the opportunity to play one level lower. There's no chance that partner deliberately delayed drawing attention to the infraction to gain a legal advantage; partner simply doesn't know the Laws that well. In my original post, I changed the 3S call to a pass, since I thought that would make a more interesting problem with more potential for damage. OK, there it is. Did the director get it 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 Fri Apr 6 02:38:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35GcS925110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:38:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35GcLt25106 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:38:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f35GcEh13937 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:38:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:38 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] L68E 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: Ian D Crorie wrote: > I realize this is a digression from a serious discussion but I couldn't > resist pointing out that according to some authorities in this mailing > list, there is no guaranteed endplay by leading a small trump from both > hands. The defender who has already revoked in trump can just revoke > again and of course, according to some, there is no penalty for further > revokes in the suit. If the hand is played out the defender can indeed revoke again. Declarer can then ask both defenders to inspect their hands carefully as there is another spade out - he can even insist on calling the TD to help them find it. The revoke can mercifully be corrected before it is established. However the above was a claim situation where following suit when possible should, I think, always be assumed. 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 Apr 6 02:40:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35Ge2e25122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:40:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35Gdut25118 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:39:56 +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 JAA18246; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:39:54 -0700 Message-Id: <200104051639.JAA18246@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Apr 2001 17:33:40 +0200." <3.0.6.32.20010405173340.00809aa0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:39:53 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 09:25 5/04/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >At 04:35 AM 4/5/01, Marvin wrote: > >> > >> > OK, I'm definitely missing something here. "The largest car that is > >> > red" has to be a red car, right? So isn't it a trivial consequence of > >> > the English language that "the most favorable result that was likely" > >> > has to be a likely result (using whatever definition of "likely" the > >> > SO adopts)? > > > >American Heritage Dictionary: "likely... 3. Within the realm of > >credibility...; plausible". Does that help? > > > AG : may I remember you, subtle grammarians, that according to the great > S.J. Simon, the best result possible and the best possible result are not > the same thing, Actually, I don't think this has anything to do with the English language, either grammatically or idiomatically. If you asked a non-bridge player what the difference in meaning between those two phrases is, I don't think they could see a difference. The difference is pretty much understood just by those who have read Simon's book (or heard about it). -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 6 03:17:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35HGp425200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 03:16:51 +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 f35HGkt25196 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 03:16:46 +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 KAA18961; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:16:43 -0700 Message-Id: <200104051716.KAA18961@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L63 and L69 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:02:26 +0200." Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:16:43 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > If somebody revokes, and then somebody claims that same trick, > at which point does the revoke become established? Suppose > that South is declarer in some contract, West revokes > and in the next trick South claims (so the revoke would > not be established if West woke up at that time). At the > time everybody agrees with the claim. Is the revoke now > established? But what if East complains before the next > deal? Does the revoke then become "unestablished" > again? I think it would be more proper to say "disestablished". My question is: if one camp argues that the revoke would not become disestablished, would their position have to be known as antidisestablishmentarianism? -- 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 Apr 6 03:55:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35HtEN26046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 03:55:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35Ht8t26018 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 03:55:08 +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, 5 Apr 2001 10:55:41 -0700 Message-ID: <005c01c0bdf9$840684e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Cc: References: <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010404091529.00b24bb0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:48:06 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 05:28 AM 4/4/01, David wrote: > > >I really have no idea who thinks L12C3 allows an AC to do anything it > >wants. Certainly not the ACs. Oooh, I wish I could find the reply David put up when I first inquired about the meaning of L12C3 some years ago, on first reading it. At the time I thought it seemed to be a good idea, but wasn't sure what it meant. So I asked, citing half a dozen possibilities, all that I could think of, reasonable and far-out, and David simply replied: "All of the above." > > Certainly not the ACs east of the Atlantic, perhaps. Look at the Lille appeals in 1998. Maybe I can't blame all the strange decisions of the BOB and others on L12C3, but I associate (perhaps unfairly) the free-wheeling use of PPs and artificial scores in those appeals with the introduction of L12C3 at about that time. > > >Of course, L12C3 has nothing to do with > >awarding PPs, which an AC has a complete right to do so under L90 and > >L93B3. That means they have an unalienable right to issue PPs > >whether L12C3 is enabled or not [eg ACBL ACs have a right to issue > > PPs] so has nothing to do with L12C3. > > L93B3 refers to "disciplinary powers," which is L91 stuff. The title of L90 was changed from "Disciplinary Penalties" to "Procedural Penalties," with no change in content, in 1975. Evidently the LC believed that penalties for violating procedures that are peculiar to duplicate bridge ought not to be characterized as "disciplinary." Both TDs and ACs have always had the right to issue PPs, which go way back to the original Laws of Duplicate Bridge. When modifying rubber bridge laws for duplicate, they were created to provide a way to penalize players for not following procedures peculiar to duplicate (e.g., passing boards incorrectly). The use of PPs to augment MI and UI irregularities when they are either harmless (no adjustment) or extremely serious (adjustment deemed insufficient punishment) was to my knowledge unknown, at least in ACBL-land, until the 1990s. For over 60 years no one considered using PPs for that purpose. Serious offenses were treated as conduct/ethics irregularities to be handled outside the game's scoring column, not in it. Except, of course, for serious stuff that required immediate *disciplinary* measures of L91. Somehow TDs and ACs, perhaps feeling the need for more power, picked up on using PPs for this purpose in the last decade. It seems to have started in Europe, and has now spread to ACBL NABC ACs. So far I don't see PPs being used this way by ACBL TDs. Considering how they are being used now, perhaps the next Laws revision should change the title of L90 back to "Disciplinary Penalties." > I (and, I suspect, Marv too) have sat on ACs which have been prevented > from making very bad rulings only by someone's (often my) insistence > that the ruling be justified by reference to some specific law(s). We > very much fear losing our principal weapon for the preservation of > sanity amidst chaos when "we did equity" becomes a reference to some > specific law. Directors hereabouts never ask me to serve on an AC. I think they believe I am biased against them. Possibly true. > > I took David to task earlier for a post in which he carelessly > referred to using L12C3 "instead of" L12C2, pointing out that the L12C3 > requires an adjusted score to be first computed under L12C2, then > "varied" to do equity. Now I'm 100% confident that David understands this > distinction very well and was merely using loose language. If the > average ACBL AC member was as much as 1% as knowledgeable in the > subtleties of the law as David is I'm not sure Marv or I would be > objecting to the acceptance of L12C3. I still would object, on these grounds: -- The NOS, while given some benefit of doubt, is typically not given enough. -- Laws should be suitable for all levels, and L12C3 is only feasible for top-level TDs and ACs. -- Divining the probabilities for multiple results requires crystal balls that are not available. -- Experienced players are given too much credit, the inexperienced not enough, when calculating probabilities. -- Its deterrent effect is nil, not sufficiently discouraging of MI/UI offenses. -- The same infraction is likely to receive quite different score adjustments from different adjudicators. -- It requires analysis by a group that includes good analysts rather than by an individual TD (as the current L12C3 recognizes) Out of time, 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 Apr 6 04:25:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35IPJn28241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 04:25:19 +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 f35IPDt28237 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 04:25:14 +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, 5 Apr 2001 11:25:47 -0700 Message-ID: <008401c0bdfd$b88e8f60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:15:53 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > > I believe what Marv is saying is that in the ACBL, at some level, ACs > (and TDs?) who think 12C2 doesn't adequately compensate the NOS will > award the OS a PP *for that reason*, either not bothering to find a > justification in Law 90, or finding one solely to justify the PP they > want to assign to compensate NOS. Marv appears to believe that a PP, > if assigned, should be assigned *for the procedural offense*, > regardless whether 12C (or any other law) provides "adequate > compensation". If so, I agree with him. I don't believe that PPs should be used for any purpose other than those typified in L90B, but certainly they should not depend on the compensation provided by L12C. For instance, if Alert mistakes or other MI are cause for a PP, it should not be only for those that are involved in an appeal, as is currently true. I don't see PPs for the OS being used to compensate the NOS (they get nothing), but do see them being used as a sop to the feelings of the NOS when an appeal goes against them. I guess that's what you meant by "compensate." > > I don't know of any examples of TDs or ACs doing this myself Perhaps > the thing for Marv to do at this point is to provide one or two, from > casebooks or personal experience. Dallas case 15, the AC used a PP (Alert failure) to augment a score adjustment. Dallas case 13 (UI) AC did the same. Usually, however, a PP is assigned only when the table result can't be changed and the AC feels a need too punish the OS. Reno Cases 15 and 16 had PPs issued for no-damage MI after the table result was kept. I could go on and on. > > If it does happen now in ACBL-land as Marv suggests, then my > (admittedly limited) experience with rulings here suggests that if > 12C3 is implemented here, the problem will only get worse - and you > do not give a chainsaw to someone who can't safely handle a handsaw. > Uh-huh. 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 Apr 6 04:45:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35IjOP28274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 04:45:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35IjIt28270 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 04:45:19 +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, 5 Apr 2001 11:45:51 -0700 Message-ID: <009801c0be00$86b28de0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010403093016.00a93680@127.0.0.1> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010403093016.00a93680@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010405090926.007c1100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:37:56 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grant Sterling" (snip of good presentation of his opinion) > > But, again, there is the theoretical issue still unresolved. As in > the case of claim rulings, I would rather have TD's and AC's try to be just > to the best of their abilities even if it means they will be less 'fair', > then to have them be 'fair' but unjust. 'Fairness', in your sense of the > word, has never struck me as a particularly important thing. [Granted, I > prefer fairness to unfairness _all other things being equal_.] > Equitable, just, fair: The three words are roughly synonymous, and many of us are using them more or less interchangeably. May I suggest: Use "equitable" in Grattan's sense: each side gets its perceived equity in the deal before any irregularity. Use "just" to refer to rulings and decisions that are in accordance with the Laws. Use "fair" to refer to rulings and decisions that treat each side with appropriate consideration. That is, a ruling is just but unfair if it is made in accordance with the Laws but favors one or the other side too much. It can also be inequitable, as the revoke penalty often 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 Fri Apr 6 05:07:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35J6i128311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 05:06:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f35J6ct28307 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 05:06:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp226-198.worldonline.nl [195.241.226.198]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 8812038102 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:06:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003101c0be03$d4f24380$c6e2f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:08:40 +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 The local Appeals Committee of which I am a member encountered a difficulty yesterday that may have been discussed on BLML before. We had to deal with an appeal a case that obviously concerned an erroneous ruling by a director (he had applied L27B1 whereas L27B2 should have been invoked, but as far as I am concerned, any misruling could have prompted my question - a TD, for instance, might correctly quote L64A2, and yet transfer two tricks whereas transfering one would have been correct in a particular case). My questions are: * does L93B forbid us to overrule the TD in case of a misruling ? * if it does so indeed, would you prefer to have the Laws changed so that some or all AC's become entitled to judge cases like these ? I have been told TD's in the States usually apply the Laws better than AC's over there; in the Netherlands, though, AC members are usually selected with care, and normally know the Laws at least as well as TD's - well, please don't quote me as an example refuting this statement in case I am wrong about L93B, for I am a TD as well as an AC member :-)) Thank you for your opinion, Jac -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 6 06:02:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35K2XU05901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 06:02:33 +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 f35K2Qt05866 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 06:02:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f35K2JG29486 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:02:19 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:02 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] L68E 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: <4.3.2.7.1.20010405084750.00b28a20@127.0.0.1> > >As to the legal wording I suggest "doubtful points arising from the > >revoke will be decided against the revoker rather than the claimer". > >I'm fairly sure all of us would agree that e.g. the location of an > >unrelated card was not a point arising from the revoke. > > But it could be, couldn't it? The revoke could cause declarer to > miscount the hand perforce, and cause him to lose a finesse which he > takes through the hand he "knows" to be longer in the suit, but > isn't. I think this could only happen on conditional claims e.g "Playing West for the spade queen". It is in this sort of situation I expect the TD to make a judgement that the miscount arises from the revoke, the choice of line arises from the miscount and thus the choice of line is a doubtful point arising from the revoke. I would expect the TD to make such a judgement even if the declarer failed to raise the point. I don't have to worry about situations where a player claims because he "knew from the count" that the queen must drop - that player will tell the TD so spontaneously. > Even then, that would put the > burden of proof on the claimer, which means that in identical > situations we may give more tricks to a more articulate and better > informed "bridge litigator". This is always a risk, and is inherent in many of the existing laws. Good TDs minimise the impact of such differences. Perhaps the laws should be designed so that even bad TDs give consistent rulings but that is thread for another day. 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 Apr 6 06:13:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35KCi009522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 06:12:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f35KCbt09485 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 06:12:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35DNiI01322 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:23:44 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:08:05 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200104051449.KAA03678@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200104051449.KAA03678@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01040513234402.01249@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 05 Apr 2001, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > If you are denying redress to a reader of blml, then why > > should you give redress to some poor slob who has been > > tought one thing : "call the TD" and did not do that ? > > As Adam has explained better than I can, it is abnormal to > call the TD for every missed alert. How many players are even aware of L75D? I don't think I have ever seen an opponent call the TD when correcting a misexplanation. Of course, it isn't practical to call the TD for every violation. My standard practice is to call the TD when it seems reasonable that MI may have affected the opponents, or when there could be a UI case and the opponents may not be aware of their rights. In most other cases, I will correct the explanation and tell the opponents that the TD may be called if there is a problem. For example, on the auction 1NT-2C-2H-2NT-3NT when 2NT immediately would have been a transfer, a simple announcement to the opponents, "There was a failure to alert. 2NT denies four spades" is sufficient. Yes, it's an infraction of L75D, and could, in theory, jeopardize my rights, but I don't see how any damage can occur as long as the correction is made in time to allow opening leader to reconsider his lead. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 6 10:38:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f360bPL29289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:37:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f360bIt29250 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:37:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.123.16.75] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14lKFG-00048h-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 06 Apr 2001 01:36:58 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c0be31$9ab1ea80$4b107bd5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001201c0bdac$7c15c540$e79201d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 01:36:20 +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: > >Yes, you are. You are giving the side that misinformed its opponents, > >thereby breaking Laws 40B and 75A, a bonus because both they and their > >opponents failed to call the director. You appear to me to be asserting > >(as was asserted in the Brighton case) that if a pair fails to call the > >director as soon as misinformation comes to light, they are no longer > >entitled to redress from damage consequent upon the misinformation. This > >is not so. > > Well, the Law says it is so. No, it does not. It is you who have constructed the following specious argument: a pair misinforms the opponents, but the misinformation comes to light in time for a call to be changed under Law 21; however, because the director is not summoned once the misinformation comes to light, the opponents are not given the opportunity to change the call; "therefore", they lose the right to have the score adjusted to what might have happened had they been correctly informed. The word "therefore" is in quotation marks above because it actually has no logical force; there is nothing in the Laws themselves to support such a conclusion. As others have pointed out, the reaction of the vast majority to a situation in which correct information is provided once a misinformed player has made a call is most certainly not: "Well, let us have the director, and maybe he will let me have my call back". Rather, it is - and quite reasonably: "Well, I had better not make a fuss at this point, otherwise I might convey unauthorised information to partner; maybe if we call the director afterwards, he will make some determination based on the fact that I have been misinformed". I stress: the failure to know the ins and outs of Laws 21 and 9B is not nearly so serious a crime as the failure to disclose your methods in a timely fashion to the opponents. Yet you seem to me to want the former to be punished in all cases, while punishment for the latter may not happen at all. (For "punishment", read "redress for damage", if you foolishly believe the Scope of the Laws.) You say that we must educate players in the Laws (though you have elsewhere said that players do not actually need to know the Laws because their friendly neighbourhood director will sort out any difficulties on their behalf). I don't think we need to do that at all. Instead, we should educate players in the methods they are playing, so that they will (a) know them and (b) explain them to the opponents when they are supposed to. It is not really good enough to say, as you are "coming round to" saying, that both sides should be punished; if the infraction of misinformation had not occurred, there would be no scope for the infraction of failing to summon the director. (Yes, Eric, I know that this is at variance with my view that if you should not have been a defender, you could not have revoked in defence, but you should nevertheless be penalised for having done so; however, there is a direct and causal connection in the case under discussion that is absent from the other case.) 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 Apr 6 10:43:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f360hBo01375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:43:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f360h4t01347 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:43:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.123.16.75] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14lKKs-0004Xc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 06 Apr 2001 01:42:46 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c0be32$6a0f3e40$4b107bd5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200104042226.SAA26776@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200104042312.QAA02310@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 01:42:08 +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: > All I ask the players to do is to remember the contents of L9B1: other > Laws may be left to the Director. And why specifically 9B1? Why should one not ask players to remember the contents of, for example, Law 50D2(b)? Perhaps, in its next revision, the WBF Laws Commission might consider issuing two publications, one entitled "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge", and the other "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge that We Would Like You to Remember". 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 Apr 6 11:50:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f361oGR08096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:50:16 +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 f361oAt08092 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:50:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f35J1IR01521 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:01:18 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: [BLML] The Laws that players should know (was: Timing of TD call) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:37:50 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200104042226.SAA26776@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001901c0be32$6a0f3e40$4b107bd5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001901c0be32$6a0f3e40$4b107bd5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01040519011801.01501@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 06 Apr 2001, David Burn wrote: > DWS wrote: > > > All I ask the players to do is to remember the contents of L9B1: > other > > Laws may be left to the Director. > > And why specifically 9B1? Why should one not ask players to remember the > contents of, for example, Law 50D2(b)? Perhaps, in its next revision, > the WBF Laws Commission might consider issuing two publications, one > entitled "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge", and the other "The > Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge that We Would Like You to Remember". For many of the Laws, what is important is that the palyers know that the TD will enforce the appropriate penalty. Laws like 50D2(b) will come up when the TD has already been called because there is a penalty card on the table. Likewise, it's not important for a player to know the penalty for an insufficient bid (in fact, it's better if most players don't), merely that there is one and that the TD will give it. If the TD rules out of the book, the players can confirm that the rules are correct even if they do not know them, This is really an issue for local SO's. "The Laws that are Important for Players to Know" Which Laws are these? The ones which players will need to apply at the table with no TD present. (The basic rules of bridge are omitted from this list.) 7B: Count your cards before the deal. 9B: Call the Director when *anything* goes wrong. 16A: Do not choose a LA which is suggested by partner's UI. 25A: You may correct a mispulled card from the bidding box, or mis-spoken bid, if you do so without pause for thought. 41: Lead face down, wait for questions, and then face your lead. 42-43: Dummy's rights. 61B: You may/may not (depending on SO) ask partner whether he is out of the suit led. 65D,66D: Leave your cards arranged until the number of tricks has been agreed. 68: Proper claiming procedure, and call the TD if you question a claim. 72-76: All the Proprieties. 75D (should really be part of Law 40): Correct your own explanation immediately; correct partner's only when at the end of the auction when you are declarer or dummy, or the end of the hand when you are on defense. (Also call the TD, although this is one case in which it isn't done.) 92-93: You may appeal a director's ruling. -- 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 Apr 6 13:23:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f363MLs15408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:22:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin3.email.bigpond.com (juicer24.bigpond.com [139.134.6.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f363MFt15387 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:22:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.54]) by mailin3.email.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GBCPLC00.1AC for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:27:12 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-44.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.44]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Bovine-MailRouter V2.9c 11/1874123); 06 Apr 2001 13:21:23 Message-ID: <028d01c0be48$a21ce7e0$0ed336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:15:30 +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 David Burn wrote: > ... the following specious argument: a pair misinforms the >opponents, but the misinformation comes to light in time for >a call to be changed under Law 21; however, because the >director is not summoned once the misinformation comes to >light, the opponents are not given the opportunity to change the >call; "therefore", they lose the right to have the score adjusted to >what might have happened had they been correctly informed. >The word "therefore" is in quotation marks above because it >actually has no logical force; there is >nothing in the Laws themselves to support such a conclusion. Just thought I'd add that Law 11A is specifically about what the Director should do when the NOs have delayed summoning the Director. According to Law 11A, when the NOs "may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty", the Director rules that the NOs' right to penalise is forfeited. Recent BLML discussions in other threads about "inferences drawn from what the Laws don't say" perhaps suggest that in other circumstances, "losing the right to penalise" may be inappropriate. 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 Apr 6 15:10:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f365AEp20663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:10:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f365A7t20620 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:10:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010406050948.PZWA27186.femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:09:48 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] MI from Japan Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:13:48 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <006f01c0bdac$1db994e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From Rich via Linda: The following procedure is not how I would actually do it...but it captures the idea most clearly. List ALL possible results, ranked from most to least likely. Draw a line so that all the results above it are about equally likely and the first result below the line represents a significant dropoff in likelihood from any above the line. The results left above the line qualify as "likely." Now pick the most favorable of them from above the line. That is the most favorable result that is likely. No numbers. Just a relatively homogeneous set of likely results from which you pick the most favorable. Another way to look at it is, any result which has a significantly lower likelihood than any other is no longer in the running. Thus, the set of "likely" results does NOT include any result what has a significantly lower likelihood than another in the set. That means that no result may be assigned to the NOS that is not one of those which is a "competitively" likely bridge result. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 6 15:14:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f365E7l22065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:14:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f103.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.103]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f365E1t22038 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:14:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:13:53 -0700 Received: from 172.129.249.44 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 06 Apr 2001 05:13:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.129.249.44] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 22:13:53 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2001 05:13:53.0546 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F870EA0:01C0BE58] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >DWS wrote: > > All I ask the players to do is to remember the contents of L9B1: >other > > Laws may be left to the Director. > >And why specifically 9B1? Why should one not ask players to remember the >contents of, for example, Law 50D2(b)? Perhaps, in its next revision, >the WBF Laws Commission might consider issuing two publications, one >entitled "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge", and the other "The >Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge that We Would Like You to Remember". Because in order to follow 9B1 you must know all the laws. You cannot summon the director when attention has been brought to an irregularity if you do not recognize that what had attention brought to it was in fact an irregularity. It's the catch-all. -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 Apr 6 16:48:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f366lfs02214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 16:47:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f366lYt02210 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 16:47:35 +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 f366hQw11808; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:43:26 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <008401c0bdfd$b88e8f60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <008401c0bdfd$b88e8f60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 02:38:59 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:15 AM -0700 4/5/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >I don't see PPs for the OS being used to compensate the NOS (they get >nothing), but do see them being used as a sop to the feelings of the NOS >when an appeal goes against them. I guess that's what you meant by >"compensate." 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/AwUBOs1mL72UW3au93vOEQJFPgCgw46wr+XTVSxlC99Tu+pXMnRJXgQAn0Wr zHk/ii3O0lTII/CspSRNZRiF =mMWY -----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 Apr 6 18:09:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3689Bi03442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:09:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36891t03434 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:09:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-52.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.52]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3688tt23839 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:08:56 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ACC5258.5CF52B1C@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:09:12 +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] L68E References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Tim, congratulations. Tim West-meads wrote: > > In-Reply-To: <3AC9F013.BC24A2A9@village.uunet.be> > HDW wrote: > > > I hope my example covers all bases : It did not, but may I alter : > > > > AQT86 KJ975 > > Ax Kx > > xx xx > > AJ9x KT8x > > > > Do we accept it is a doubtful point which defender will win the diamond > tricks? I think we should, so at that point the defender who didn't > revoke is assumed to be on lead - he is endplayed and, of necessity, > concedes a ruff and discard (or cheap club trick). Still a club loser you > say. Declarer now plays a low trump from each hand endplaying the revoker not in the situation above. > - now the club loser must disappear. The second endplay is free since it > converts a one trick revoke into a two trick revoke! > Anyway, the problem remains. Even if a real line could work, it is still possible for claimer to see only the "TD will rule in my favour" line. > Ok maybe the claim statement was slightly flawed but I wrote this more > because of the curiosity value of a non trick conceding throw-in. > I can see RR pulling off such a coup in a grand when TT revokes and > Karapet has a cashing Ace. Imagine, if you will, the expression on HHs > face as his partner triumphs again. > > As to the legal wording I suggest "doubtful points arising from the revoke > will be decided against the revoker rather than the claimer". I'm fairly > sure all of us would agree that e.g. the location of an unrelated card was > not a point arising from the revoke. > Your sentence has the advantage of brevity, but is it clear enough ? what is "arising from the revoke" ? OK, maybe my "related to the revoke" is just as unclear, but at least that is placed in a part of the Laws that is difficult to reach, because the conditions are strict (revoke known by claimer). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 6 18:09:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3689Ft03443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:09:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36892t03435 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:09:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-52.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.52]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3688wt23922 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:08:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ACC5322.E444E45D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:12:34 +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] L63 and L69 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >L63A3 includes "acquiesces" (which makes the revoke > >established). > > > >According to L69A, acquiescence occurs when there is no > >complaint before the next deal. > > > >So L63A3 could just as easily be read without the > >acquiesces, can't it ? > > Well, actually we had a discussion a few weeks ago about > this very subject. The question boils down to this: If > somebody revokes, and then somebody claims that same trick, > at which point does the revoke become established? Suppose > that South is declarer in some contract, West revokes > and in the next trick South claims (so the revoke would > not be established if West woke up at that time). At the > time everybody agrees with the claim. Is the revoke now > established? But what if East complains before the next > deal? Does the revoke then become "unestablished" > again? > I believe it does. But then there is no reason to put an "acquiesces" in L63, is there ? Since by the time the acquiescence is definitive, so is the establishment. Ah, now I see : it does not ! There is no way for a revoke to become established if it is in the last trick played ! The only way it becomes established is by the acquiescence. So the word IS needed in L63 ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 6 20:07:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36A6p212635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 20:06:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36A6jt12602 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 20:06:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.123.27.48] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14lT8Z-0002Uq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:06:40 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c0be81$260515e0$301b7bd5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <028d01c0be48$a21ce7e0$0ed336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:05:43 +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 Peter wrote: > Just thought I'd add that Law 11A is specifically about what > the Director should do when the NOs have delayed summoning > the Director. According to Law 11A, when the NOs "may have > gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in > ignorance of the penalty", the Director rules that the NOs' > right to penalise is forfeited. Recent BLML discussions in > other threads about "inferences drawn from what the Laws > don't say" perhaps suggest that in other circumstances, > "losing the right to penalise" may be inappropriate. I am not quite sure of the relevance of Law 11A in this case, though I know that it has been introduced into the discussion. Here, we have an irregularity of misinformation, and the non-offending side has taken some action after the irregularity but before (or instead of) summoning the director. But the offending side's actions cannot harm them through being taken "in ignorance of the penalty", for there is no "penalty" as such to be paid (other than a procedural one, perhaps). The Law ends with the words: "The Director so rules when [X]", leaving open the question of whether the Director may also so rule when not [X] but [Y] obtains instead; the use of the terms "iff" and "whenn" (expanded for legibility, of course) would be of benefit in the next revision of the Laws. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 6 20:33:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36AXew22253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 20:33:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36AXXt22209 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 20:33:33 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id MAA18060; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:33:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Apr 06 12:33:23 2001 +0200 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 <01K22VJ7K7KO0057DN@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:33:16 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2JAL7ZJL>; Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:32:48 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:33:15 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Timing of TD call To: "'David Burn'" , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7F7@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 Law ends > with the words: "The Director so rules when [X]", leaving open the > question of whether the Director may also so rule when not [X] but [Y] > obtains instead; the use of the terms "iff" and "whenn" (expanded for > legibility, of course) would be of benefit in the next revision of the > Laws. I agree that we should use the words 'if' and 'when' in such a way as to help us to explain what we want. But I do not understand why using 'if' here would have solved this problem. In my language even using 'if' it is still possible to 'so rule' when not [X] (if I understand my own language well). And I project this knowledge to the English language in the same way. Am I wrong? 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 6 21:00:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36B0UX01718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:00:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36B0Ot01678 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:00:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.123.27.48] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14lTyR-0006gc-00; Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:00:16 +0100 Message-ID: <00bf01c0be88$a2ac3b80$301b7bd5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Kooijman, A." , "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7F7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:59:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: [DALB] > > The Law ends > > with the words: "The Director so rules when [X]", leaving open the > > question of whether the Director may also so rule when not [X] but [Y] > > obtains instead; [DALB, continued] > > the use of the terms "iff" and "whenn" (expanded for > > legibility, of course) would be of benefit in the next revision of the > > Laws. [TK} > I agree that we should use the words 'if' and 'when' in such a way as to > help us to explain what we want. But I do not understand why using 'if' here > would have solved this problem. In my language even using 'if' it is still > possible to 'so rule' when not [X] (if I understand my own language well). > And I project this knowledge to the English language in the same way. Am I > wrong? Apologies for confusing shorthand. "iff" is used in mathematical notation to mean "if and only if"; "whenn" to mean "when and only when". If what is meant is that "The Director so rules when and only when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action...", the position would be clearer if that were what was said. There have been other instances recently of the time-honoured debate about whether, because the Laws say you may do X, they imply that you may not do not-X; these questions could be resolved once and for all by a few iffs and whenns. 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 Apr 6 21:22:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36BMGB09391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:22:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36BM9t09356 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:22:09 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA12997; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:22:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Apr 06 13:21:58 2001 +0200 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 <01K22X80NE7G0055VF@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:21:31 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2JAL76RR>; Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:21:03 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:17:27 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Timing of TD call To: "'David Burn'" , "Kooijman, A." , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7F9@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ton: > But I do not understand why using > 'if' here would have solved this problem. In my language even using 'if' it is > still possible to 'so rule' when not [X] (if I understand my own language > well). And I project this knowledge to the English language in the > same way. > Am I wrong? > David: > Apologies for confusing shorthand. "iff" is used in mathematical > notation to mean "if and only if"; "whenn" to mean "when and > only when". > If what is meant is that "The Director so rules when and only when the > non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action...", the > position would be clearer if that were what was said. There have been > other instances recently of the time-honoured debate about whether, > because the Laws say you may do X, they imply that you may > not do not-X; > these questions could be resolved once and for all by a few iffs and > whenns. > > David Burn > London, England > Sorry I didn't understand that. I now know what 'iff' means. But what with 'whenn'? isn't 'iff' the same as 'whenn'? 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 Apr 6 21:38:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36Bc2A14939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:38:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36Bbtt14900 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:37:56 +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 NAA04684; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:37:21 +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 NAA04722; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:37:27 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010406134042.007efba0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:40:42 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200104051555.IAA17432@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 08:55 5/04/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >I think we're all agreed that "likely" doesn't necessarily mean what >it would mean in normal usage; in the ACBL, "likely" means having a >probability of 1/3 or higher. I also thought it was clear that DB was >using the terms "likely" and "at all probable" within that context. AG : the ACBL rule simply doesn't work. If you request a result to have a 33%+ probability to be considered likely, what would the assessed result be if there are 5 possible results, each around 20% probability ? 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 Apr 6 21:41:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36BfmC16251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:41:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36Bfft16232 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:41:42 +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 NAA05361; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:41:08 +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 NAA06851; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:41:14 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010406134429.007efba0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:44:29 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200104051639.JAA18246@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:39 5/04/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Actually, I don't think this has anything to do with the English >language, either grammatically or idiomatically. If you asked a >non-bridge player what the difference in meaning between those two >phrases is, I don't think they could see a difference. The difference >is pretty much understood just by those who have read Simon's book (or >heard about it). AG : in French, they would see it. At least those who read Voltaire, who mocked the phrase 'le meilleur des mondes possible' (the best of all possible worlds), playing on words with 'le meilleur monde possible' (the best world that is possible). 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 Apr 6 21:49:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36Bncl16268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:49:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36BnSt16264 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:49:29 +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 NAA06262; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:48:54 +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 NAA11311; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:49:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010406135216.0080da50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:52:16 +0200 To: "Jac Fuchs" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers In-Reply-To: <003101c0be03$d4f24380$c6e2f1c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:08 5/04/01 +0200, Jac Fuchs wrote: >The local Appeals Committee of which I am a member encountered a >difficulty yesterday that may have been discussed on BLML before. >We had to deal with an appeal a case that obviously concerned an >erroneous ruling by a director (he had applied L27B1 whereas L27B2 >should have been invoked, but as far as I am concerned, any misruling >could have prompted my question - a TD, for instance, might correctly >quote L64A2, and yet transfer two tricks whereas transfering one would >have been correct in a particular case). AG : reading L93B3 (in French), I infer that the only decisions that aren't reversible by ACs are : - *correct* application of the law (emphasis mine) - disciplinary matters The two cases you mention are out of this set, thus the AC may intervene. Is it really that easy ? 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 Apr 6 23:18:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36DHUH14267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:17:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36DHOt14233 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:17:24 +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 f36DHJT94774 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:17:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010406090941.00b29b60@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, 06 Apr 2001 09:18:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] MI from Japan In-Reply-To: References: <006f01c0bdac$1db994e0$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 01:13 AM 4/6/01, ltrent wrote: > >From Rich via Linda: > >The following procedure is not how I would actually do it...but it >captures >the idea most clearly. > >List ALL possible results, ranked from most to least likely. Draw a >line so >that all the results above it are about equally likely and the first >result >below the line represents a significant dropoff in likelihood from any >above >the line. The results left above the line qualify as "likely." Now >pick the >most favorable of them from above the line. That is the most favorable >result that is likely. No numbers. Just a relatively homogeneous set of >likely results from which you pick the most favorable. > >Another way to look at it is, any result which has a significantly lower >likelihood than any other is no longer in the running. Thus, the set of >"likely" results does NOT include any result what has a significantly >lower >likelihood than another in the set. That means that no result may be >assigned to the NOS that is not one of those which is a "competitively" >likely bridge result. A player makes a successful call which has been blatantly suggested by UI from partner. We determine that without the UI, there was a 50% probability that he would make the same call and a 50% probability that he would have made one of five other calls, with equal probability, each of which would have led to a different result which is worse for the OS. Applying the above procedure, we would allow the table result to stand. Can that be 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 Fri Apr 6 23:28:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36DSDP17665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:28:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36DS2t17611 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:28:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-169.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.169]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f36DRwp10984 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:27:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ACD84ED.16E0BBC9@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 10:57:17 +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] L63 and L69 References: <200104051716.KAA18961@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: > > > deal? Does the revoke then become "unestablished" > > again? > > I think it would be more proper to say "disestablished". My question > is: if one camp argues that the revoke would not become > disestablished, would their position have to be known as > antidisestablishmentarianism? > Adam gets the annual BLML award for the best use of a Shakespeare quote. At last we know what this word means ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 6 23:28:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36DSDa17663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:28:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36DS2t17603 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:28:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-169.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.169]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f36DRtp10976 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:27:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 10:45:19 +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] Timing of TD call References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@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: > > > Ok, but this thread started with a case that included the following > conversation: > > > > 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. > Well David, if I remember well, the case started with the Brighton appeal, and the fact was noticed that in the write-up there was no mention of a conversation of this sort. Also, many messages have since hinted at the case where L9 does not apply. Nor did the message I was answering to make it clear that you were only talking about this one particular instance. Nor did I think you were still under the impression that anyone disagreed with you on the "with L9 scenario". So I am sorry if I misinterpreted that you had also moved to the more general case. > All my comments have been on this case or its type. > > > I do agree with you that when L9B1 does not cover a situation then > L9B1 does not cover it. > Which leads me to the interesting bit : What do you rule if L9 does not apply ? I believe the ruling should be the same - but you don't have L9 to help. Now how do you rule ? And do you then see that you do not need L9 in the first place either ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 7 00:29:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36ESmK26562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:28:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36ESgt26558 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:28:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.252.45.49]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010406142838.HSYO290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:28:38 +0100 Message-ID: <009101c0bea5$f26bb480$312dfc3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20010406135216.0080da50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:29:10 +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 I have waited with bated breath for someone to reply to this one. I thought it was as easy as that, and I wondered whether I could possibly be wrong. Thanks Alain :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" To: "Jac Fuchs" ; "BLML" Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers > At 21:08 5/04/01 +0200, Jac Fuchs wrote: > >The local Appeals Committee of which I am a member encountered a > >difficulty yesterday that may have been discussed on BLML before. > >We had to deal with an appeal a case that obviously concerned an > >erroneous ruling by a director (he had applied L27B1 whereas L27B2 > >should have been invoked, but as far as I am concerned, any misruling > >could have prompted my question - a TD, for instance, might correctly > >quote L64A2, and yet transfer two tricks whereas transfering one would > >have been correct in a particular case). > > AG : reading L93B3 (in French), I infer that the only decisions that aren't > reversible by ACs are : > - *correct* application of the law (emphasis mine) > - disciplinary matters > > The two cases you mention are out of this set, thus the AC may intervene. > > Is it really that easy ? > > 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 Apr 7 01:47:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36FlM526647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:47:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36FlGt26643 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:47:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f36Fl7L16421 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 16:47:07 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 16:47 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] L68E 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: <3ACC5258.5CF52B1C@village.uunet.be> HDW wrote: > > > I hope my example covers all bases : > > It did not, but may I alter : > > > > > > > AQT86 KJ975 Spoilsport! At least now we understand why the "people of the pack" told Robert Darvas they hated spot cards being turned into x's. (Right Through The Pack, Darvas and DeVere Hart) 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 Apr 7 01:53:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36FrVl26663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:53:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36FrPt26659 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:53:26 +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 IAA08557; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 08:53:23 -0700 Message-Id: <200104061553.IAA08557@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:40:42 +0200." <3.0.6.32.20010406134042.007efba0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 08:53:23 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 08:55 5/04/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > >I think we're all agreed that "likely" doesn't necessarily mean what > >it would mean in normal usage; in the ACBL, "likely" means having a > >probability of 1/3 or higher. I also thought it was clear that DB was > >using the terms "likely" and "at all probable" within that context. > > > AG : the ACBL rule simply doesn't work. If you request a result to have a > 33%+ probability to be considered likely, what would the assessed result be > if there are 5 possible results, each around 20% probability ? Right, the rule isn't good enough to cover all cases, but of course that doesn't affect the point I was trying to make. I suppose that if the table result for NS were +50, and EW had committed an infraction, and without the infraction the possible scores for NS would be +50, +100, +200, +620, +650, each with about 20% probability, then I'd figure there was a 40% probability (and therefore "likely") that NS would score at least +620, so it would be wrong to award them less than that. So I'd probably give NS +620 (and EW -650). Except that if I were to follow the custom of most ACBL directors, I suppose I'd throw up my hands, award A+/A-, and go get some more coffee. -- 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 Apr 7 01:59:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36FxDg26684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:59:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36Fx5t26677 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:59:05 +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 14lYdU-0004k4-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:58:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:48:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >>From: "David Burn" >>DWS wrote: >> > All I ask the players to do is to remember the contents of L9B1: >>other >> > Laws may be left to the Director. >> >>And why specifically 9B1? Why should one not ask players to remember the >>contents of, for example, Law 50D2(b)? Perhaps, in its next revision, >>the WBF Laws Commission might consider issuing two publications, one >>entitled "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge", and the other "The >>Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge that We Would Like You to Remember". > >Because in order to follow 9B1 you must know all the laws. You cannot >summon the director when attention has been brought to an irregularity if >you do not recognize that what had attention brought to it was in fact an >irregularity. It's the catch-all. OK, I knew that I should not make over-simplistic comments really. Players do not need to know the Law book. What they need to know is what is an irregularity. That is so they know when summoning the TD is a good idea. There are some Laws they need to know. L9B1, L73C, and some others. But, in fact, even there, what I mean is that there are certain things players should do and they should learn what they are. To me, calling the TD after attention is drawn to an irregularity comes very high up everybody's list. For players that are not inexperienced the requirements of L73C are up there as well. How about splitting the laws into those we would like players to remember and others? Well, David was not serious, but his underlying idea is reasonable: players should learn some of the Rules, but with many of the Rules they do not have to. Educating players somehow would be a good idea. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 7 01:59:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36FxA526683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:59:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36Fx1t26673 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:59:02 +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 14lYdU-000IkO-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:58:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:37:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) References: <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010404091529.00b24bb0@127.0.0.1> <005c01c0bdf9$840684e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005c01c0bdf9$840684e0$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: "Eric Landau" > >> At 05:28 AM 4/4/01, David wrote: >> >> >I really have no idea who thinks L12C3 allows an AC to do anything it >> >wants. Certainly not the ACs. > >Oooh, I wish I could find the reply David put up when I first inquired >about the meaning of L12C3 some years ago, on first reading it. At the >time I thought it seemed to be a good idea, but wasn't sure what it >meant. So I asked, citing half a dozen possibilities, all that I could >think of, reasonable and far-out, and David simply replied: "All of the >above." I cannot believe that I included things which are nothing to do with L12C3. >> Certainly not the ACs east of the Atlantic, perhaps. > >Look at the Lille appeals in 1998. Maybe I can't blame all the strange >decisions of the BOB and others on L12C3, but I associate (perhaps >unfairly) the free-wheeling use of PPs and artificial scores in those >appeals with the introduction of L12C3 at about that time. Why? L12C3 was already in use before Lille anyway, and it does not include artificial scores and PPs. It is like blaming foot-and-mouth in England on Bush. Both appeared at the same time, but blaming one for the other is not fair. If you do not like the decisions that is ok, but ones that are not given under L12c3 are not the fault of L12C3. [s] >I still would object, on these grounds: > >-- The NOS, while given some benefit of doubt, is typically not given >enough. >-- Laws should be suitable for all levels, and L12C3 is only feasible >for top-level TDs and ACs. I do not believe this. In my view, L12C3 is less damaging than L12C2 with poor TDs and ACs. >-- Divining the probabilities for multiple results requires crystal >balls that are not available. >-- Experienced players are given too much credit, the inexperienced not >enough, when calculating probabilities. >-- Its deterrent effect is nil, not sufficiently discouraging of MI/UI >offenses. >-- The same infraction is likely to receive quite different score >adjustments from different adjudicators. >-- It requires analysis by a group that includes good analysts rather >than by an individual TD (as the current L12C3 recognizes) Individual TDs do not give judgement decisions unaided. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 7 03:35:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36HT3922842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:29:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36HStt22805 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:28:56 +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 14la2V-000Hmu-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:28:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:23:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L63 and L69 References: <200104051716.KAA18961@mailhub.irvine.com> <3ACD84ED.16E0BBC9@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3ACD84ED.16E0BBC9@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 <3ACD84ED.16E0BBC9@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> > deal? Does the revoke then become "unestablished" >> > again? >> >> I think it would be more proper to say "disestablished". My question >> is: if one camp argues that the revoke would not become >> disestablished, would their position have to be known as >> antidisestablishmentarianism? >> > >Adam gets the annual BLML award for the best use of a >Shakespeare quote. > >At last we know what this word means ! > Herman, you're indulging in floccipaucinihilopilification. 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 Apr 7 05:30:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36JTt008046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 05:29:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36JTnt08042 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 05:29:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp226-121.worldonline.nl [195.241.226.121]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id D84B336BA2; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:29:37 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001401c0bed0$3946f340$79e2f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: , Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:31:41 +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 >I have waited with bated breath for someone to reply to this one. I >thought it was as easy as that, and I wondered whether I could possibly >be wrong. Thanks Alain :-) >Anne Thank you, Alain and Anne, but I would not have posted the question if it would have seemed that easy to us. My English text of the Laws says "the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations", and in addition to that, it does not say that this is restricted to *correct* application of the law (Alain's emphasis). If the TD applied what he believed to be the appropriate Law in a way he believed to be correct, wouldn't overruling the TD be "touching on a point of law" - whether his ruling was erroneous or not ? Jac >----- Original Message ----- >From: "alain gottcheiner" >To: "Jac Fuchs" ; "BLML" > >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:52 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers > > >> At 21:08 5/04/01 +0200, Jac Fuchs wrote: >> >The local Appeals Committee of which I am a member encountered a >> >difficulty yesterday that may have been discussed on BLML before. >> >We had to deal with an appeal a case that obviously concerned an >> >erroneous ruling by a director (he had applied L27B1 whereas L27B2 >> >should have been invoked, but as far as I am concerned, any misruling >> >could have prompted my question - a TD, for instance, might correctly >> >quote L64A2, and yet transfer two tricks whereas transfering one >would >> >have been correct in a particular case). >> >> AG : reading L93B3 (in French), I infer that the only decisions that >aren't >> reversible by ACs are : >> - *correct* application of the law (emphasis mine) >> - disciplinary matters >> >> The two cases you mention are out of this set, thus the AC may >intervene. >> >> Is it really that easy ? >> >> 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 Sat Apr 7 05:52:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36JqmM08088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 05:52:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36Jqet08084 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 05:52:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([213.105.137.6]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010406195236.GGB272.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 20:52:36 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c0bed3$369cda80$068969d5@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <001401c0bed0$3946f340$79e2f1c3@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 20:53:12 +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 Yes - I did consider this. I believe that "may not over-rule on a point of Law" means just that. If the TD has correctly applied the Law then that is the ruling. AC can recommend that TD reconsiders. If however the TD has applied the incorrect Law then the law he applied is not the Law.If the TD has applied the correct Law, but has applied it incorrectly then the law that he has applied is not the Law. I find it interesting that L93B1 refers to Law and regulation. L93B3 refers to law and regulation.(European edition) I wonder if the lower case "l" in L93B3 is significant. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: ; Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers > >I have waited with bated breath for someone to reply to this one. I > >thought it was as easy as that, and I wondered whether I could > possibly > >be wrong. Thanks Alain :-) > >Anne > > Thank you, Alain and Anne, > but I would not have posted the question if it would have seemed that > easy to us. > My English text of the Laws says "the committee may not overrule the > Director on a point of law or regulations", and in addition to that, > it does not say that this is restricted to *correct* application of > the law (Alain's emphasis). > If the TD applied what he believed to be the appropriate Law in a way > he believed to be correct, wouldn't overruling the TD be "touching on > a point of law" - whether his ruling was erroneous or not ? > > Jac > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "alain gottcheiner" > >To: "Jac Fuchs" ; "BLML" > > > >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:52 PM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers > > > > > >> At 21:08 5/04/01 +0200, Jac Fuchs wrote: > >> >The local Appeals Committee of which I am a member encountered a > >> >difficulty yesterday that may have been discussed on BLML before. > >> >We had to deal with an appeal a case that obviously concerned an > >> >erroneous ruling by a director (he had applied L27B1 whereas L27B2 > >> >should have been invoked, but as far as I am concerned, any > misruling > >> >could have prompted my question - a TD, for instance, might > correctly > >> >quote L64A2, and yet transfer two tricks whereas transfering one > >would > >> >have been correct in a particular case). > >> > >> AG : reading L93B3 (in French), I infer that the only decisions > that > >aren't > >> reversible by ACs are : > >> - *correct* application of the law (emphasis mine) > >> - disciplinary matters > >> > >> The two cases you mention are out of this set, thus the AC may > >intervene. > >> > >> Is it really that easy ? > >> > >> 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 Apr 7 06:19:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36KJAZ08899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 06:19:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36KJ1t08889 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 06:19:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp226-121.worldonline.nl [195.241.226.121]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 33F7836B70 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 22:18:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <013f01c0bed7$1b2db400$79e2f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 22:20:59 +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 Thank you again, Anne. >Yes - I did consider this. >I believe that "may not over-rule on a point of Law" means just that. If >the TD has correctly applied the Law then that is the rulng. AC can >recommend that TD reconsiders. If however the TD has applied the >incorrect Law then the law he applied is not the Law.If the TD has >applied the correct Law, but has applied it incorrectly then the law >that he has applied is not the Law. I suppose you are correct, and I would gladly have it so, but would this do in practice ? Any AC overruling a TD ruling would argue the TD was in the wrong, and that therefore the AC has the right to overturn his decision. I have repeatedly been told L93B(3) is there especially to prevent this from happening ... >I find it interesting that L93B1 refers to Law and regulation. L93B3 >refers to law and regulation.(European edition) I wonder if the lower >case "l" in L93B3 is significant. I have spotted that too, and I have been wondering whether it merely was a misprint or an oversight. on second thought, however, I believe "law" in L93B3 has a lower case "l" because it is part of the expression "point of law", and thus does not refer to the Laws of Bridge as such, but to the philosophic or linguistic entity "point of law" (I hope I have not been speaking gibberish here). In L93B1, as opposed to L93B3, "Law" is used because it is part of the expression "the Law" - explicitly implicating the Laws of Bridge, that is. Jac >Anne >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jac Fuchs" >To: "BLML" >Cc: ; >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 8:31 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers > > >> >I have waited with bated breath for someone to reply to this one. I >> >thought it was as easy as that, and I wondered whether I could >> possibly >> >be wrong. Thanks Alain :-) >> >Anne >> >> Thank you, Alain and Anne, >> but I would not have posted the question if it would have seemed that >> easy to us. >> My English text of the Laws says "the committee may not overrule the >> Director on a point of law or regulations", and in addition to that, >> it does not say that this is restricted to *correct* application of >> the law (Alain's emphasis). >> If the TD applied what he believed to be the appropriate Law in a way >> he believed to be correct, wouldn't overruling the TD be "touching on >> a point of law" - whether his ruling was erroneous or not ? >> >> Jac >> >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "alain gottcheiner" >> >To: "Jac Fuchs" ; "BLML" >> > >> >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:52 PM >> >Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers >> > >> > >> >> At 21:08 5/04/01 +0200, Jac Fuchs wrote: >> >> >The local Appeals Committee of which I am a member encountered a >> >> >difficulty yesterday that may have been discussed on BLML before. >> >> >We had to deal with an appeal a case that obviously concerned an >> >> >erroneous ruling by a director (he had applied L27B1 whereas L27B2 >> >> >should have been invoked, but as far as I am concerned, any >> misruling >> >> >could have prompted my question - a TD, for instance, might >> correctly >> >> >quote L64A2, and yet transfer two tricks whereas transfering one >> >would >> >> >have been correct in a particular case). >> >> >> >> AG : reading L93B3 (in French), I infer that the only decisions >> that >> >aren't >> >> reversible by ACs are : >> >> - *correct* application of the law (emphasis mine) >> >> - disciplinary matters >> >> >> >> The two cases you mention are out of this set, thus the AC may >> >intervene. >> >> >> >> Is it really that easy ? >> >> >> >> 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 Sat Apr 7 06:43:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36KhCo15329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 06:43:12 +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 f36Kh2t15274 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 06:43:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([213.105.137.6]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010406204258.PDOF290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:42:58 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c0beda$3fee3e60$068969d5@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <013701c0bed6$d0aab0e0$79e2f1c3@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:43:33 +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: "Jac Fuchs" To: "Anne Jones" Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers > Thank you again, Anne. > > > >Yes - I did consider this. > >I believe that "may not over-rule on a point of Law" means just that. > If > >the TD has correctly applied the Law then that is the rulng. AC can > >recommend that TD reconsiders. If however the TD has applied the > >incorrect Law then the law he applied is not the Law.If the TD has > >applied the correct Law, but has applied it incorrectly then the law > >that he has applied is not the Law. > I suppose you are correct, and I would gladly have it so, but would > this do in practice ? > Any AC overruling a TD ruling would argue the TD was in the wrong, and > that therefore the AC has the right to overturn his decision. I have > repeatedly been told L93B(3) is there especially to prevent this from > happening ... > > >I find it interesting that L93B1 refers to Law and regulation. L93B3 > >refers to law and regulation.(European edition) I wonder if the lower > >case "l" in L93B3 is significant. > I have spotted that too, and I have been wondering whether it merely > was a misprint or an oversight. on second thought, however, I believe > "law" in L93B3 has a lower case "l" because it is part of the > expression "point of law", and thus does not refer to the Laws of > Bridge as such, but to the philosophic or linguistic entity "point of > law" (I hope I have not been speaking gibberish here). No - cartainly not - that makes sense to me :-) >In L93B1, as > opposed to L93B3, "Law" is used because it is part of the expression > "the Law" - explicitly implicating the Laws of Bridge, that is. I think Jac, that what is meant - and I am brave to say what I think the Law means when it does not say it - is that an AC cannot over-rule a TD when what he has done is legal under the Laws of Bridge. For instance, if the TD correctly ruled a revoke to be a two trick revoke, then the AC cannot over-rule him and say that because it does not think that is fair, then it should only be one trick. On the other hand - if a TD interpreted the Law in one way, and the AC interpreted it differently, I would think that the AC has the right to overturn the ruling. We now have a situation where a TD trained to interpret the Law, and we will assume has got it right, is overturned by a lay AC of players who did not accept his guidance as to the Law. In this case maybe the AC should ask the TD to reconsider. If the TD is confident that his interpretation is correct, and the AC is confident that it is wrong, then this is probably a decision for an L&EC (NA) to adjudicate on. I think this is an unlikely scenario, the Law book is not that obscure in it's explanations. Anne > > Jac > > >Anne > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Jac Fuchs" > >To: "BLML" > >Cc: ; > >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 8:31 PM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers > > > > > >> >I have waited with bated breath for someone to reply to this one. > I > >> >thought it was as easy as that, and I wondered whether I could > >> possibly > >> >be wrong. Thanks Alain :-) > >> >Anne > >> > >> Thank you, Alain and Anne, > >> but I would not have posted the question if it would have seemed > that > >> easy to us. > >> My English text of the Laws says "the committee may not overrule > the > >> Director on a point of law or regulations", and in addition to > that, > >> it does not say that this is restricted to *correct* application > of > >> the law (Alain's emphasis). > >> If the TD applied what he believed to be the appropriate Law in a > way > >> he believed to be correct, wouldn't overruling the TD be "touching > on > >> a point of law" - whether his ruling was erroneous or not ? > >> > >> Jac > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- > >> >From: "alain gottcheiner" > >> >To: "Jac Fuchs" ; "BLML" > >> > > >> >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:52 PM > >> >Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers > >> > > >> > > >> >> At 21:08 5/04/01 +0200, Jac Fuchs wrote: > >> >> >The local Appeals Committee of which I am a member encountered > a > >> >> >difficulty yesterday that may have been discussed on BLML > before. > >> >> >We had to deal with an appeal a case that obviously concerned > an > >> >> >erroneous ruling by a director (he had applied L27B1 whereas > L27B2 > >> >> >should have been invoked, but as far as I am concerned, any > >> misruling > >> >> >could have prompted my question - a TD, for instance, might > >> correctly > >> >> >quote L64A2, and yet transfer two tricks whereas transfering > one > >> >would > >> >> >have been correct in a particular case). > >> >> > >> >> AG : reading L93B3 (in French), I infer that the only decisions > >> that > >> >aren't > >> >> reversible by ACs are : > >> >> - *correct* application of the law (emphasis mine) > >> >> - disciplinary matters > >> >> > >> >> The two cases you mention are out of this set, thus the AC may > >> >intervene. > >> >> > >> >> Is it really that easy ? > >> >> > >> >> 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 Sat Apr 7 07:18:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36LIcr28367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 07:18:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36LISt28313 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 07:18:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f36LJS518144; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007e01c0bedf$1541eb80$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Burn" , "Kooijman, A." , "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7F7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <00bf01c0be88$a2ac3b80$301b7bd5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:10:52 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > Apologies for confusing shorthand. "iff" is used in mathematical > notation to mean "if and only if"; "whenn" to mean "when and only when". > If what is meant is that "The Director so rules when and only when the > non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action...", the > position would be clearer if that were what was said. There have been > other instances recently of the time-honoured debate about whether, > because the Laws say you may do X, they imply that you may not do not-X; > these questions could be resolved once and for all by a few iffs and > whenns. > and xors and iors, and xeithers and ieithers. 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 Apr 7 07:24:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36LO2W29201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 07:24:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36LNtt29193 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 07:23:55 +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 RAA15814 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:23:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA12296 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:23:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:23:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104062123.RAA12296@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 Burn" > Perhaps, in its next revision, > the WBF Laws Commission might consider issuing two publications, one > entitled "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge", and the other "The > Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge that We Would Like You to Remember". This is actually quite a good idea. I've toyed with the idea of writing the second book by deleting the Laws that only TD's need to know, but in practice I'm unlikely ever to do the job. Maybe someone else would like to try. > From: David J Grabiner > "The Laws that are Important for Players to Know" > > Which Laws are these? The ones which players will need to apply at the > table with no TD present. (The basic rules of bridge are omitted from > this list.) Exactly. Of course the basic rules, the ones that define correct procedure, should be included in the eventual book, but David assumes that we on BLML know them. > 7B: Count your cards before the deal. > 9B: Call the Director when *anything* goes wrong. > 16A: Do not choose a LA which is suggested by partner's UI. Not needed, I think, as long as 73C is in the book. > 25A: You may correct a mispulled card from the bidding box, or > mis-spoken bid, if you do so without pause for thought. > 41: Lead face down, wait for questions, and then face your lead. > 42-43: Dummy's rights. Probably add parts of 45C, which defines when a card is played and whether it can be changed. > 61B: You may/may not (depending on SO) ask partner whether he is > out of the suit led. ZA, not SO, but yes. > 65D,66D: Leave your cards arranged until the number of tricks has > been agreed. > 68: Proper claiming procedure, and call the TD if you question a > claim. > 72-76: All the Proprieties. > 75D (should really be part of Law 40): Correct your own explanation > immediately; correct partner's only when at the end of the > auction when you are declarer or dummy, or the end of the hand > when you are on defense. (Also call the TD, although this is > one case in which it isn't done.) > 92-93: You may appeal a director's ruling. We could quibble about the exact list, but the above gives the flavor of what is needed. I wonder how long the book would 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 Sat Apr 7 07:39:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36LdOs29814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 07:39:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36LdHt29805 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 07:39:17 +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 RAA16334 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA12321 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:39:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104062139.RAA12321@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] MI from Japan X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Linda Trent" > >From Rich via Linda: > > The following procedure is not how I would actually do it...but it captures > the idea most clearly. Thanks, Linda. Maybe you could pass the following back to Rich? > List ALL possible results, ranked from most to least likely. Draw a line so > that all the results above it are about equally likely and the first result > below the line represents a significant dropoff in likelihood from any above > the line. The above is not possible in general. What if there is no abrupt dropoff? In fact, there's a much better way to do things, which we have discussed before on BLML. Keep reading. > From: alain gottcheiner > AG : the ACBL rule simply doesn't work. It's the "Rich Colker rule," not the ACBL rule. I agree it doesn't work. > If you request a result to have a > 33%+ probability to be considered likely, what would the assessed result be > if there are 5 possible results, each around 20% probability ? Make a list as Rich suggests, but order the list according to favorability to the NOS. Assign a probability to each result. Work your way down the list until the cumulative probability exceeds 1/6: assign that result to the OS. Keep going until the cumulative probability exceeds 1/3: assign that result to the NOS. Simple, no? In theory you should assign a probability to every conceivable result, but in practice the answer won't change if you ignore results that have low probability. In Alain's case, the OS would get the worst (for them) of the five results, and the NOS would get the second-best (for them). Sounds about right to me. > From: Eric Landau > A player makes a successful call which has been blatantly suggested by > UI from partner. We determine that without the UI, there was a 50% > probability that he would make the same call and a 50% probability that > he would have made one of five other calls, with equal probability, > each of which would have led to a different result which is worse for > the OS. Applying the above procedure, we would allow the table result > to stand. Can that be right? No, of course not. The call that used UI was _illegal_; we do not consider any illegal actions. (Read L12C2: "had the irregularity not occurred." While there is no such stipulation for the OS, we don't consider adjusting to a result that includes the irregularity unless the result is _less_ favorable to the OS. For example, if their illegal contract was due to go down but made by virtue of irrational play by the NOS, we might adjust to "illegal contract down" rather than "legal contract at lower level making." But this is _only_ for the OS; the NOS result _must not_ include any vestige of an illegal action.) Once the illegal call is eliminated, we have the same case as Alain gave us: five results, 20% each. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 7 07:49:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36Lmeq00185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 07:48:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36LmXt00175 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 07:48:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f36LnX522980; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008b01c0bee3$4b73ae60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , References: <3.0.6.32.20010406134042.007efba0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:46:38 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 "Adam Beneschan" wrote: > > > >I think we're all agreed that "likely" doesn't necessarily mean what > >it would mean in normal usage; in the ACBL, "likely" means having a > >probability of 1/3 or higher. I also thought it was clear that DB was > >using the terms "likely" and "at all probable" within that context. > > > AG : the ACBL rule simply doesn't work. If you request a result to have a > 33%+ probability to be considered likely, what would the assessed result be > if there are 5 possible results, each around 20% probability ? Everyone please quit using "likely" out of context. The "most favorable result that was likely" may not be a likely result. Or, if you argue with that, one dictionary sense of "likely," as someone pointed out, can be something with much less than a 50% probability. The "rule" was not a rule, but a guideline, labeled as such. Guidelines are not rules to be taken literally, but are elementary hints as to how a law should be applied in the majority of cases. All the ACBL LC was trying to do with the guideline for L12C2 was to make it clear that the probability criterion for assigning scores to the NOS and OS are somewhat different, and to give a feel for what the diffence is. The answer to your question is simple (thanks to Steve Willner): Rank the 5 possible results in the order of their favorability, most favorable to least favorable. Assign the result for the second-most favorable. That is the most favorable result whose degree of favorability has at least a 1/3 probability, and I would bet the LC would agree that this accords with its guideline. Right, Chip? 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 Apr 7 08:11:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36MBWm01066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:11:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36MBQt01062 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:11:26 +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 SAA17307 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:11:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA12365 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:11:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:11:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104062211.SAA12365@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Jac Fuchs" > We had to deal with an appeal a case that obviously concerned an > erroneous ruling by a director (he had applied L27B1 whereas L27B2 > should have been invoked, but as far as I am concerned, any misruling > could have prompted my question - a TD, for instance, might correctly > quote L64A2, and yet transfer two tricks whereas transfering one would > have been correct in a particular case). > My questions are: > * does L93B forbid us to overrule the TD in case of a misruling ? > * if it does so indeed, would you prefer to have the Laws changed so > that some or all AC's become entitled to judge cases like these ? It will help to think about decisions in three categories: facts, bridge judgments, and application of law. The AC can override the TD on the first two but not on the third. In the L27 case, for example: 1. Did the player make an insufficient bid? This is a question of fact; the AC has final authority. 2. Were both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid "incontrovertibly not conventional?" This is largely a question of bridge judgment, but issues of fact come in as well. (For example, what bidding methods were in use?) Here again, the AC has final authority. 3. Given the answers to 1 and 2, what should the penalty be? This is a question of law; the TD has final authority. Similarly in the revoke case, which cards were played at which times is a question of fact, whereas applying the penalties and calculating results is a matter of law. (Bridge judgment is unlikely to be an issue in a revoke case. :-) ) Of course the three categories are not completely distinct -- I have fudged a bit in item 1, for example. (The sequence of bids made at the table is a question of fact, but whether, say, 1H is insufficient after 1S has been bid is a question of law.) And no doubt other schemes of categorization could be invented, but I think the above should answer most practical questions. Keep in mind that whether a given question is or is not a matter of law is itself a matter of law, so the TD has final authority in the end, subject to appeal to the National Authority. However, a TD who exercises this authority unreasonably is going to be very rare (and soon out of a job). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 7 08:18:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36MIkv01350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:18:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36MIdt01342 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:18:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f36MJh527898 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00be01c0bee7$7feaf000$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <013701c0bed6$d0aab0e0$79e2f1c3@default> <000901c0beda$3fee3e60$068969d5@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:18:02 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > We now have a situation where a TD trained to interpret the Law, and we > will assume has got it right, is overturned by a lay AC of players who > did not accept his guidance as to the Law. In this case maybe the AC > should ask the TD to reconsider. If the TD is confident that his > interpretation is correct, and the AC is confident that it is wrong, > then this is probably a decision for an L&EC (NA) to adjudicate on. > I think this is an unlikely scenario, the Law book is not that obscure > in it's explanations. > Happened to me once. An ACBL National Director ruled that, as dummy, I could not point out a line of play that would render a defensive claim invalid. In this case the AC agreed with the TD, who told them that they could not overrule her on a point of law. So I appealed to ACBL headquarters, and the ruling was corrected (but not our score). As I read L93B3, the AC could have recommended a change in the ruling, but could not have changed it on their own. While on this subject, the "disciplinary powers" referred to by L93B3 are those powers contained in L91, not L90. That is why the ACBL's Zero Tolerance regulations cite L91 as the authority; they didn't want TDs' automatic ZT penalties to be appealable, as PPs are. 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 Apr 7 08:29:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36MSoV01743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:28:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f36MSht01735 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:28:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f36MTk529602 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:29:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00cf01c0bee8$e7c659c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200104062123.RAA12296@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:25:14 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote, in regard to a simple set of Laws for players: > We could quibble about the exact list, but the above gives the > flavor of what is needed. I wonder how long the book would be. Since players don't have to be knowledgeable about the penalties for most irregularities, omitting language concerned with penalties would shorten the book by quite a bit, even if you omitted none of the Laws. Just give them the rules, and tell them when the TD should be called. 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 Apr 7 09:32:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36NVV004105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:31:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36NVCt04082 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:31:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-176.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.176]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BB55353711 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:31:08 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:28:42 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson (Fri 30 Mar 2001 02:12) writes: >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. I do not quarrel with this approach but if it is the one desired by the lawmakers why on earth have they worded L27B1(a) this way? Instead of " If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are *incontrovertibly* not conventional..." the law could say "If the director deems that both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are not conventional ..." ( a phraseology used elsewhere in the Laws). Incontrovertible: indisputable, indubitable (Chambers) 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 Sat Apr 7 09:32:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36NVMS04094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:31:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36NVBt04080 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:31:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-176.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.176]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id E44BF53631 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:31:06 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:28:41 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson (Thu 29 Mar 2001 17:46) writes: >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. There was no intention to be cunning, I just don't understand your position. > 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. No, David. I'm sorry, but this won't do. The question which you answered in the affirmative was: >>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 do not see that you can refuse L64C redress here *unless* you have saddled yourself with the notion that equity is fixed at the outset of the hand. >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. This is IMO gobbledegook. If you believe L64C equity is determined *only* at the start of the hand, as in your answer above, then the unfortunate but logical conclusion of this premise is that you *must* in all cases examine the whole hand before you can apply L64C. 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 Sat Apr 7 09:32:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f36NVaA04108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:31:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f36NVOt04098 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:31:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-176.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.176]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3EEB153740 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:31:10 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke/What is equity...? Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:28:44 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the 'What is equity in a revoke situation' string, John (MadDog) Probst (Thu 29 Mar 2001 17.22) writes: >When I wrote this ("Equity is the equity in the hand at the point it was dealt") 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. Well we seem to have *some* consensus that equity is determined immediately prior to an irregularity, but if two revokes occur why should it only be prior to the first one? Let us get some "action" between the revokes. Suppose declarer is in 3N and 11 tricks are routinely available. Declarer commits a L64A1 revoke ( 2 trick penalty) at trick 1. However 11 tricks can still be taken, so 3N still makes after the penalty. It's teams, so 2 IMPs out - not a disaster. Declarer now has a brainstorm at trick 4 and takes an unnecessary finesse and now there are only 10 tricks - 2 = 8 on any rational legal line of play. At trick 5 declarer now commits a second revoke in the same suit, L64B2 (no penalty). This cuts the defenders' communications and he ends up with 11 tricks after all or 9 tricks after the L64A1 penalty. If you allow 9 tricks because "L64C equity is applied only in respect of the position prior to the *first* revoke", you are protecting the declarer against errors in the inter-revoke period. The declarer has committed two offences and misplayed the hand. The NOS have been entirely blameless and were at one stage of the hand guaranteed to take five tricks, yet they end up with only four. How can they have been "sufficiently compensated" as required by L64C? The notion that L64C applies only to the position prior to the first revoke seems to be based on a vague suggestion that this is what the lawmakers intended. There does not appear to be anything in the Laws themselves which supports this position. 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 Sat Apr 7 10:34:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f370XkK08783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:33:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f370Xbt08774 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:33:37 +1000 (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 14lgfU-0002FA-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:33:33 +0100 Message-ID: <8BYuxRAyHfz6Ewff@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:42:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan References: <006f01c0bdac$1db994e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <200104051555.IAA17432@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010406134042.007efba0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010406134042.007efba0@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 08:55 5/04/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >>I think we're all agreed that "likely" doesn't necessarily mean what >>it would mean in normal usage; in the ACBL, "likely" means having a >>probability of 1/3 or higher. I also thought it was clear that DB was >>using the terms "likely" and "at all probable" within that context. > > >AG : the ACBL rule simply doesn't work. If you request a result to have a >33%+ probability to be considered likely, what would the assessed result be >if there are 5 possible results, each around 20% probability ? A+/A-. Simple really. Whoops, sorry, forgot myself for a moment! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 7 10:34:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f370Xlw08784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:33:47 +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-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 f370Xbt08775 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:33:38 +1000 (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 14lgfU-0002FB-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 01:33:34 +0100 Message-ID: <2xws9XARMfz6Ew8h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:47:13 +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> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@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: >> Ok, but this thread started with a case that included the following >> conversation: >> >> > > 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. >> > >Well David, if I remember well, the case started with the >Brighton appeal, and the fact was noticed that in the >write-up there was no mention of a conversation of this >sort. True, which was why I put it here on the list. i know that no-one wrote it on the form, but it was known that attention was drawn in the Brighton case. >Also, many messages have since hinted at the case where L9 >does not apply. Sure, and if you check back I do not think you will find I have actually answered any of them. >Nor did the message I was answering to make it clear that >you were only talking about this one particular instance. > >Nor did I think you were still under the impression that >anyone disagreed with you on the "with L9 scenario". David Burn certainly does. >So I am sorry if I misinterpreted that you had also moved to >the more general case. In my view it is not a more general case but a different 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 Sat Apr 7 12:11:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f372ARh11909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:10:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f372AAt11889 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:10:11 +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 14liAu-0005rc-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:10:08 +0100 Message-ID: <5MswzZADVnz6Ewe5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:02:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers References: <001401c0bed0$3946f340$79e2f1c3@default> <001101c0bed3$369cda80$068969d5@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001101c0bed3$369cda80$068969d5@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 >Yes - I did consider this. >I believe that "may not over-rule on a point of Law" means just that. If >the TD has correctly applied the Law then that is the ruling. AC can >recommend that TD reconsiders. If however the TD has applied the >incorrect Law then the law he applied is not the Law.If the TD has >applied the correct Law, but has applied it incorrectly then the law >that he has applied is not the Law. The AC cannot over-rule the TD on a point of Law. Why should an AC which is not trained in the laws know whether a TD who is trained in the Laws has got the Law 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 Sat Apr 7 12:11:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f372ARi11910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:10:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f372ACt11890 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:10:13 +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 14liAu-0005rd-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:10:09 +0100 Message-ID: <4MywTeA7Vnz6Ewed@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:03:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers References: <013f01c0bed7$1b2db400$79e2f1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <013f01c0bed7$1b2db400$79e2f1c3@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 >Thank you again, Anne. > >>Yes - I did consider this. >>I believe that "may not over-rule on a point of Law" means just that. >If >>the TD has correctly applied the Law then that is the rulng. AC can >>recommend that TD reconsiders. If however the TD has applied the >>incorrect Law then the law he applied is not the Law.If the TD has >>applied the correct Law, but has applied it incorrectly then the law >>that he has applied is not the Law. >I suppose you are correct, and I would gladly have it so, but would >this do in practice ? No, because the Law does not permit it. Please, it is quite clear, the AC may not over-rule the TD on a point of 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 Apr 7 12:11:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f372AQn11908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:10:26 +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-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 f372A9t11886 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:10:10 +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 14liAu-0005rW-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:10:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:17:49 +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 >David Stevenson (Thu 29 Mar 2001 17:46) writes: >>Brambledown writes >>>I'm mystified. >>>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 do not see that you can refuse L64C redress here *unless* you have saddled >yourself with the notion that equity is fixed at the outset of the hand. Indeed. Well, you can put whatever words you like into my mouth, but I am not "saddling" myself with anything, and I do not believe that equity is fixed at the outset of the hand. >>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. > >This is IMO gobbledegook. If you believe L64C equity is determined *only* >at the start of the hand, as in your answer above, then the unfortunate but >logical conclusion of this premise is that you *must* in all cases examine >the whole hand before you can apply L64C. As I have already said, I consider this just 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 Sat Apr 7 12:11:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f372AVh11914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:10:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f372AKt11904 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:10:21 +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 14liB4-0005rW-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:10:17 +0100 Message-ID: <0cwz3iAyWnz6Ew+1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:04:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers References: <013701c0bed6$d0aab0e0$79e2f1c3@default> <000901c0beda$3fee3e60$068969d5@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <000901c0beda$3fee3e60$068969d5@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 >On the other hand - if a TD interpreted the Law in one way, and the AC >interpreted it differently, I would think that the AC has the right to >overturn the ruling. No, they may not. They may not over-rule the TD on a point of 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 Apr 7 12:11:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f372ATM11912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:10:29 +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-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 f372AAt11887 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:10:11 +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 14liAu-0005rb-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:10:07 +0100 Message-ID: <8cxxnWA2Tnz6Ewfj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 03:01:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers References: <001401c0bed0$3946f340$79e2f1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <001401c0bed0$3946f340$79e2f1c3@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 >>I have waited with bated breath for someone to reply to this one. I >>thought it was as easy as that, and I wondered whether I could >possibly >>be wrong. Thanks Alain :-) >Thank you, Alain and Anne, >but I would not have posted the question if it would have seemed that >easy to us. >My English text of the Laws says "the committee may not overrule the >Director on a point of law or regulations", and in addition to that, >it does not say that this is restricted to *correct* application of >the law (Alain's emphasis). >If the TD applied what he believed to be the appropriate Law in a way >he believed to be correct, wouldn't overruling the TD be "touching on >a point of law" - whether his ruling was erroneous or not ? Yes, certainly. If a point of Law is all that is involved then an AC may not over-rule the TD. In England TDs are trained in the Laws: ACs are expected to apply judgement, but rely on the TD for the Laws. I must have been dozing - has someone said differently? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 7 17:02:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3771Bm13351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:01:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f37713t13343 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:01:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f37726V05496 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:02:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <012601c0bf30$7a22a480$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200104062211.SAA12365@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:57:07 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote, concerning fact, judgment, and law, with the AC as final authority for the first two: 3. Given the answers to 1 and 2, what should the penalty be? This is a question of law; the TD has final authority. > Of course the three categories are not completely distinct -- I have > fudged a bit in item 1, for example. (The sequence of bids made at the > table is a question of fact, but whether, say, 1H is insufficient after > 1S has been bid is a question of law.) And no doubt other schemes of > categorization could be invented, but I think the above should answer > most practical questions. Keep in mind that whether a given question > is or is not a matter of law is itself a matter of law, so the TD has > final authority in the end, subject to appeal to the National > Authority. However, a TD who exercises this authority unreasonably is > going to be very rare (and soon out of a job). And within "law" are included LC interpretations. And then there are ZA/SO regulations, for which the TD also has final authority. There seems to be a fuzzy line between what are interpretations of Laws/regulations and what are merely implementations of them. Some of the implementing we see by ACs when accomplishing 1. and 2. looks a lot like interpretation, which is not their job. Should there not be a TD representative on all ACs to advise on laws/regulations and to watch for AC intrusions into area 3? 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 Apr 7 19:37:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f379aht24764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 19:36:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f379aWt24754 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 19:36:34 +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 14lp8u-0000M8-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:36:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:28:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers References: <001401c0bed0$3946f340$79e2f1c3@default> <8cxxnWA2Tnz6Ewfj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8cxxnWA2Tnz6Ewfj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <8cxxnWA2Tnz6Ewfj@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Jac Fuchs writes >>>I have waited with bated breath for someone to reply to this one. I >>>thought it was as easy as that, and I wondered whether I could >>possibly >>>be wrong. Thanks Alain :-) > >>Thank you, Alain and Anne, >>but I would not have posted the question if it would have seemed that >>easy to us. >>My English text of the Laws says "the committee may not overrule the >>Director on a point of law or regulations", and in addition to that, >>it does not say that this is restricted to *correct* application of >>the law (Alain's emphasis). >>If the TD applied what he believed to be the appropriate Law in a way >>he believed to be correct, wouldn't overruling the TD be "touching on >>a point of law" - whether his ruling was erroneous or not ? > > Yes, certainly. If a point of Law is all that is involved then an AC >may not over-rule the TD. In England TDs are trained in the Laws: ACs >are expected to apply judgement, but rely on the TD for the Laws. > > I must have been dozing - has someone said differently? > The procedures for an appeal (when it's done well) involve the TD in giving the facts, explaining his ruling, explaining the basis of appeal and drawing the attention of the AC to the relevant Laws which apply. In some cases I have explained to a committee that certain outcomes of their deliberations would be illegal (Revely rulings for example- DWS will explain). The less experienced the AC Chairman, the more care I'll take in pointing out the aspects that they *should* consider, and those which I think are not in their remit. It is their job to apply further judgement to the ruling itself, not to question its validity. -- 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 Apr 7 19:55:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f379tGO25351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 19:55:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f379t9t25346 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 19:55:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-30.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.30]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f379t4p19139 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:55:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ACEE22B.35DB489D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 11:47:23 +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] Timing of TD call References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@village.uunet.be> <2xws9XARMfz6Ew8h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > >So I am sorry if I misinterpreted that you had also moved to > >the more general case. > > In my view it is not a more general case but a different case. > Of course it is. But in my opinion it covers the other one. So permit me to call it the more general one. I don't believe that L9 can be used to rule against this player. I think we should be able to rule under L21, or not at all. When a player refuses to call the TD, either because he does not want to, or because he does not know he has to, he has, IMHO, given up his L21B1 right to change his call. If we do not rule it this way, then we are in grave difficulty with some of the other cases, David. By using L9 to deny redress, you are saying you want to give redress when L9 does not apply. Yet you do not want to do so. So I ask you again, do you want to deny redress when L9 does not apply? And if you do, do you not then see that the same argument for denying redress also applies when L9 does ? Now just to fgo back to the basic question. DB seems to be saying that he wants to give redress because you cannot expect players to know that they have a right under L21B1. In that case, David (B), would you give redress to DWS or HDW when, in full knowledge that we have the L21B1 right, we remark an irregularity in alerting but do not draw attention to it, and don't call the TD, and don't get our L21B1 right offered, and then claim damage because we would have bid differently ? Maybe it is the case, David, that you would indeed still allow redress. That means that you are giving us two an advantage, simply because we are well versed in the laws. Or maybe you would refuse to DWS and HDW what you would allow to some poor slob who never RTFLB; then you are putting us at a disadvantage, simply because we have at some time RTFLB. I do not believe either position is tenable. Which leaves just the alternative of denying redress to us and the poor slob equally. What it boils down to is whether or not L21B1 ought to be in the list that some-one posted of Laws that the players ought to know. IMHO, all articles ought to be on that list. "Nul n'est censé ignorer la loi" (please correct my spelling Alain) I realize that players are not expected to know the rules, and I won't rule against them when they don't, but I won't rule for them either. Not when I'd rule against someone who did know the law in question. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 7 20:05:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37A52u25606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 20:05:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f37A4tt25599 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 20:04:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([213.105.136.177]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010407100450.PTPU283.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid>; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:04:50 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c0bf4a$498df8a0$b18869d5@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <013f01c0bed7$1b2db400$79e2f1c3@default> <4MywTeA7Vnz6Ewed@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:05:32 +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: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers > Jac Fuchs writes > >Thank you again, Anne. > > > >>Yes - I did consider this. > >>I believe that "may not over-rule on a point of Law" means just that. > >If > >>the TD has correctly applied the Law then that is the rulng. AC can > >>recommend that TD reconsiders. If however the TD has applied the > >>incorrect Law then the law he applied is not the Law.If the TD has > >>applied the correct Law, but has applied it incorrectly then the law > >>that he has applied is not the Law. > >I suppose you are correct, and I would gladly have it so, but would > >this do in practice ? > >David Stevenson wrote > No, because the Law does not permit it. Please, it is quite clear, > the AC may not over-rule the TD on a point of Law. > David, you do tend to repeat yourself :-)) We know this - what we are discussing is whether an AC can over-turn a TD ruling when the TD has not applied the Law. There has been a OLOOT and TD says - that's fine - prospective dummy becomes declarer - carry on. Players, who know this one, say - no I want my rights. Do you mean to tell me that this ruling is not appealable? There can be no appeal to the NA, because there has been no appeal. There has been a revoke, and TD says no tricks to be transferred, when it was correctly a two trick revoke. If what you say is true, then the players have no redress whatever, and no means of getting any. That just cannot be right can it? L93B1 says that after the chief TD - and if there is only one, he is the chief TD, rules on matters of Law and regulation - his ruling may be appealed to the appeals committee. EBU regulations certainly allow for ACs to hear such appeals. 7B Appeals to the National Authority. 7B1 These are settled by the Laws & Ethics Committee and must be submitted in writing to the Secretary of the Committee, enclosing a deposit - at the time of going to print - of Ł50. You should inform the TD of your intention to appeal, since the Committee may want information from him, as well as the comments of the Referee or the Appeals Committee which heard the original appeal. 7B2 No Appeal to the National Authority will be allowed if there was not a request for an appeal against the TD's ruling under Law 92A. [Law 93C] 7B3 The deposit will normally be returned only if the Laws & Ethics Committee considers the appeal to involve either a question of principle, an error of direction, or an error in the application of Law or Regulation. The Committee does not revise value judgements unless they are grossly inappropriate Note -- an error in the application of Law or regulation. It seems to me that it would be highly unethical if players were pressured to place Ł50 on the line, where there has been a gross error of direction, just because the AC on site could not over-rule the TD. Indeed, such cases would not get to the NA because there has been no appeal - the player being told that his ruling was not appealable. That is not the way we do things is it? 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 Apr 7 23:39:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37Dcan03544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:38:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f37DcSt03532 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:38:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-228.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.228]) by amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A05F17489 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:38:23 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:35:54 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson (Sat 07 Apr 2001 02:18) writes: >Brambledown writes >>David Stevenson (Thu 29 Mar 2001 17:46) writes: >>>Brambledown writes >>No, David. I'm sorry, but this won't do. >>The question which you answered in the affirmative was: >>>>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 do not see that you can refuse L64C redress here *unless* you have saddled >>yourself with the notion that equity is fixed at the outset of the hand. > Indeed. Well, you can put whatever words you like into my mouth, but >I am not "saddling" myself with anything, and I do not believe that >equity is fixed at the outset of the hand. Well that is progress indeed, but you have avoided the obvious question. If you are now agreeing that equity is not fixed at the outset of the hand, why are you refusing L64C redress in the above example? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 01:14:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37FEMs18413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 01:14:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f37FE5t18390 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 01:14:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f37FDwo04156 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:13:58 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:13 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers 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: <5MswzZADVnz6Ewe5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > The AC cannot over-rule the TD on a point of Law. Why should an AC > which is not trained in the laws know whether a TD who is trained in the > Laws has got the Law wrong? There is no reason why an AC *should* know the TD has misapplied the law. However it is possible that they *do* know. It is also possible that the TD will not accept this when so informed. (IIRC there is one TD writing on RGB who will not offer declarer the choice of making a card exposed during the auction an MPC or not, and gives every impression that he would never do so.) Imagine I am chairing an AC what should I do to give a correct ruling after I have failed to convince him to change his mind? Can the AC refer a case to the national authority for example? 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 Apr 8 01:14:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37FEG218405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 01:14:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f37FE5t18389 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 01:14:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f37FDvn04145 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:13:57 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:13 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke/What is equity...? 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: bramble@ukonline.co.uk wrote: > Well we seem to have *some* consensus that equity is determined > immediately prior to an irregularity, but if two revokes occur why > should it only be prior to the first one? > Let us get some "action" between the revokes. > Suppose declarer is in 3N and 11 tricks are routinely available. > Declarer commits a L64A1 revoke ( 2 trick penalty) at trick 1. However > 11 tricks can still be taken, so 3N still makes after the penalty. > It's teams, so 2 IMPs out - not a disaster. Declarer now has a > brainstorm at trick 4 and takes an unnecessary finesse and now there are > only 10 tricks - 2 = 8 on any rational legal line of play. At trick 5 > declarer now commits a second revoke in the same suit, L64B2 (no > penalty). This cuts the defenders' communications and he ends up with 11 > tricks after all or 9 tricks after the L64A1 penalty. What is equity? Why not say "It is the maximum number of tricks the NOS could expect to *take at the table* at any time during the play." In the example you give this is 3 tricks. After applying the penalty for the first revoke how many tricks do defenders have? Answer 4. Is this fewer than their equity - NO. So no L64C adjustment, no automatic penalty for a second revoke in the same suit. So the result, post adjustment is 4 tricks on defence. Of course you could define equity differently and arrive at a different adjustment. However, until a definition of equity is agreed the ruling above is just as correct as one giving 8 tricks. Note that if the revoke laws were equity, rather than penalty, based the NOS would be awarded only 3 tricks since the revokes are "harmless". 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 Apr 8 02:34:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37GY2H22144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:34:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f37GXut22140 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:33:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-98.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.98]) by amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id E0E2C17588 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:33:44 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke/What is equity...? Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:31:16 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads (Sat 07 Apr 2001 16:13) writes >bramble@ukonline.co.uk wrote: >> Suppose declarer is in 3N and 11 tricks are routinely available. >> Declarer commits a L64A1 revoke ( 2 trick penalty) at trick 1. However >> 11 tricks can still be taken, so 3N still makes after the penalty. >> It's teams, so 2 IMPs out - not a disaster. Declarer now has a >> brainstorm at trick 4 and takes an unnecessary finesse and now there are >> only 10 tricks - 2 = 8 on any rational legal line of play. At trick 5 >> declarer now commits a second revoke in the same suit, L64B2 (no >> penalty). This cuts the defenders' communications and he ends up with 11 >> tricks after all or 9 tricks after the L64A1 penalty. > >What is equity? Why not say "It is the maximum number of tricks the NOS >could expect to *take at the table* at any time during the play." Why should we specify tricks *at the table*? After trick 4, the defence will make five tricks "on any rational legal line of play" and declarer's trick 5 revoke has reduced this to four tricks. Whether or not these are "actual tricks" or L64A1 penalty tricks is surely immaterial - the defence has 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 Sun Apr 8 03:11:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37HBkl22279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 03:11:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f37HBct22275 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 03:11:40 +1000 (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 14lwFJ-000EMn-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:11:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:23:16 +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> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@village.uunet.be> <2xws9XARMfz6Ew8h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACEE22B.35DB489D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3ACEE22B.35DB489D@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >So I am sorry if I misinterpreted that you had also moved to >> >the more general case. >> >> In my view it is not a more general case but a different case. >Of course it is. But in my opinion it covers the other one. >So permit me to call it the more general one. > >I don't believe that L9 can be used to rule against this >player. > >I think we should be able to rule under L21, or not at all. > >When a player refuses to call the TD, either because he does >not want to, or because he does not know he has to, he has, >IMHO, given up his L21B1 right to change his call. >If we do not rule it this way, then we are in grave >difficulty with some of the other cases, David. >By using L9 to deny redress, you are saying you want to give >redress when L9 does not apply. Yet you do not want to do >so. >So I ask you again, do you want to deny redress when L9 does >not apply? When the Laws provide redress, I give redress. It is not up to me, but to the law-makers. Of course it seems strange that players are not required to draw attention to irregularities, but they are not. anyway, it is easy to think of a case where it is reasonable not to draw attention. When L9 does not apply, why should I not provide redress? It is not possible to take the call back, so L21B3 applies. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 06:20:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37KJn506674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:19:49 +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 f37KJYt06600 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:19:34 +1000 (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 14lzB8-000PLe-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:19:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:56:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke/What is equity...? 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 >What is equity? Why not say "It is the maximum number of tricks the NOS >could expect to *take at the table* at any time during the play." I have kept out of this argument generally, because I am not too sure what equity is, but it certainly is not what is suggested here. Equity is the number of tricks/result that the two sides would expect to take between them, not the maximum one side expects to take. That is one thing I am sure of. But how to define it otherwise, no I am not so sure. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 06:20:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37KJmn06665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:19:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f37KJWt06590 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:19:33 +1000 (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 14lzB8-000PLb-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:19:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:36:15 +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 >David Stevenson (Sat 07 Apr 2001 02:18) writes: >>Brambledown writes >>>David Stevenson (Thu 29 Mar 2001 17:46) writes: >>>>Brambledown writes > >>>No, David. I'm sorry, but this won't do. >>>The question which you answered in the affirmative was: > >>>>>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 do not see that you can refuse L64C redress here *unless* you have >saddled >>>yourself with the notion that equity is fixed at the outset of the hand. > >> Indeed. Well, you can put whatever words you like into my mouth, but >>I am not "saddling" myself with anything, and I do not believe that >>equity is fixed at the outset of the hand. > >Well that is progress indeed, but you have avoided the obvious question. >If you are now agreeing that equity is not fixed at the outset of the hand, >why are you refusing L64C redress in the above example? Because it did not feel right. You gave a very vague situation, and I guessed an answer as well as I could, not realising [a] that you would assume my answer meant I meant something else about a different situation and [b] the Spanish Inquisition was following on behind. If you want more accurate answers you would do well to give more detailed questions. N E T S I ! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 06:20:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37KJqb06686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:19:52 +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 f37KJYt06599 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:19:35 +1000 (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 14lzB8-000PLd-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:19:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:53:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers 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: <5MswzZADVnz6Ewe5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >DWS wrote: > >> The AC cannot over-rule the TD on a point of Law. Why should an AC >> which is not trained in the laws know whether a TD who is trained in the >> Laws has got the Law wrong? > >There is no reason why an AC *should* know the TD has misapplied the law. >However it is possible that they *do* know. It is also possible that the >TD will not accept this when so informed. (IIRC there is one TD writing >on RGB who will not offer declarer the choice of making a card exposed >during the auction an MPC or not, and gives every impression that he would >never do so.) Imagine I am chairing an AC what should I do to give a >correct ruling after I have failed to convince him to change his mind? Write it on the form and make sure the NA hears about it. >Can the AC refer a case to the national authority for example? Certainly. In a lot of jurisdictions, including England, Sweden, Denmark, the appeals are reviewed nationally anyway. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 06:20:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37KJpA06681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:19:51 +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-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 f37KJXt06598 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:19:34 +1000 (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 14lzB8-000PLc-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:19:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:51:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L93B - Appeals Committee powers References: <013f01c0bed7$1b2db400$79e2f1c3@default> <4MywTeA7Vnz6Ewed@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001501c0bf4a$498df8a0$b18869d5@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001501c0bf4a$498df8a0$b18869d5@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Jac Fuchs writes >> >Thank you again, Anne. >> >>Yes - I did consider this. >> >>I believe that "may not over-rule on a point of Law" means just >that. >> >If >> >>the TD has correctly applied the Law then that is the rulng. AC can >> >>recommend that TD reconsiders. If however the TD has applied the >> >>incorrect Law then the law he applied is not the Law.If the TD has >> >>applied the correct Law, but has applied it incorrectly then the law >> >>that he has applied is not the Law. >> >I suppose you are correct, and I would gladly have it so, but would >> >this do in practice ? >>David Stevenson wrote > >> No, because the Law does not permit it. Please, it is quite clear, >> the AC may not over-rule the TD on a point of Law. >> >David, you do tend to repeat yourself :-)) I know: I just received in order a set of articles telling ACs to over-rule the TD on a matter of Law, just for once I could not be bothered to do the work in editing them into one article. If you check my replies I do a lot of editing. It takes a long time, and I work at it very hard, and just for once, I could not be bothered. OK? >We know this - what we are discussing is whether an AC can over-turn a >TD ruling when the TD has not applied the Law. If it is a matter of Law the AC may not over-rule the TD. >There has been a OLOOT and TD says - that's fine - prospective dummy >becomes declarer - carry on. Players, who know this one, say - no I want >my rights. Do you mean to tell me that this ruling is not appealable? >There can be no appeal to the NA, because there has been no appeal. I did not say it was not appealable, I said the AC could not over-rule the TD. Incidentally, since you are quoting examples, consider this one: There has been an OLOOT, and the TD says - that's fine - you have five options, and gives them. One of the players objects, telling him that in his club prospective dummy becomes declarer, and he appeals. The AC agrees with him [perhaps they all come from his club]. Do you think they should over-rule the TD? In England certainly, ACs are chosen for the ability to make judgement decisions fairly and knowledgeably, not for their knowledge of the Law. In fact, ACs are told to ask the TDs if they want to know about the Law. That advice is also given by some other jurisdictions. TDs are trained in the Laws: ACs are not: do you really want the ACs to have the final say on the Laws? What happens when a TD makes a mistake? Normally, the AC recommends he changes his mind, he does, no problem. But if we adopt your approach what happens when the AC makes a mistake over the Law? Their mistake stands. >There has been a revoke, and TD says no tricks to be transferred, when >it was correctly a two trick revoke. >If what you say is true, then the players have no redress whatever, and >no means of getting any. > >That just cannot be right can it? It would be very rare that a TD would ignore the request from a TD. But you are ignoring the reverse case, where the TD rules right, and the AC decides to follow their own interpretation. >L93B1 says that after the chief TD - and if there is only one, he is the >chief TD, rules on matters of Law and regulation - his ruling may be >appealed to the appeals committee. Sure. Why not? >EBU regulations certainly allow for ACs to hear such appeals. Sure. Why not? But none of this allows the AC to overturn, and I am very glad. i think it would be a very bad mistake to let the people who are not trained in the Laws have the final say on the interpretation of the laws. >7B Appeals to the National Authority. > >7B1 These are settled by the Laws & Ethics Committee and must be >submitted in writing to the Secretary of the Committee, enclosing a >deposit - at the time of going to print - of 50. You should inform the >TD of your intention to appeal, since the Committee may want information >from him, as well as the comments of the Referee or the Appeals >Committee which heard the original appeal. > >7B2 No Appeal to the National Authority will be allowed if there was not >a request for an appeal against the TD's ruling under Law 92A. [Law 93C] > >7B3 The deposit will normally be returned only if the Laws & Ethics >Committee considers the appeal to involve either a question of >principle, an error of direction, or an error in the application of Law >or Regulation. The Committee does not revise value judgements unless >they are grossly inappropriate > >Note -- an error in the application of Law or regulation. > >It seems to me that it would be highly unethical if players were >pressured to place 50 on the line, where there has been a gross error >of direction, just because the AC on site could not over-rule the TD. >Indeed, such cases would not get to the NA because there has been no >appeal - the player being told that his ruling was not appealable. > >That is not the way we do things is it? I think it would be far worse if players were required to put 50 GBP on the line to correct an AC decision where the TD was prepared to rule correctly. That seems completely against commonsense. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 07:58:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37LwDp14259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 07:58:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f37Lw2t14207 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 07:58:03 +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 f37LtLm08103; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3ACEE22B.35DB489D@village.uunet.be> References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@village.uunet.be> <2xws9XARMfz6Ew8h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACEE22B.35DB489D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:53:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Cc: Herman De Wael Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >When a player refuses to call the TD, Refusal is action. Not calling is inaction. Two different things. >either because he does >not want to, or because he does not know he has to, he has, >IMHO, given up his L21B1 right to change his call. Where does the *law* says this? >If we do not rule it this way, then we are in grave >difficulty with some of the other cases, David. What cases? Aside from that, to interpret a law in a certain way,=20 because you don't like the side effects if you read it as it's=20 written is, IMO, to put oneself *above* the law - and I don't think=20 anyone wants to do that (well, maybe the WBF LC - and most of the=20 ACBL. :) >By using L9 to deny redress, you are saying you want to give >redress when L9 does not apply. Yet you do not want to do >so. > >So I ask you again, do you want to deny redress when L9 does >not apply? > >And if you do, do you not then see that the same argument >for denying redress also applies when L9 does ? Huh? >Now just to fgo back to the basic question. > >DB seems to be saying that he wants to give redress because >you cannot expect players to know that they have a right >under L21B1. > >In that case, David (B), would you give redress to DWS or >HDW when, in full knowledge that we have the L21B1 right, we >remark an irregularity in alerting but do not draw attention >to it, and don't call the TD, and don't get our L21B1 right >offered, and then claim damage because we would have bid >differently ? > >Maybe it is the case, David, that you would indeed still >allow redress. >That means that you are giving us two an advantage, simply >because we are well versed in the laws. > >Or maybe you would refuse to DWS and HDW what you would >allow to some poor slob who never RTFLB; then you are >putting us at a disadvantage, simply because we have at some >time RTFLB. > >I do not believe either position is tenable. > >Which leaves just the alternative of denying redress to us >and the poor slob equally. > >What it boils down to is whether or not L21B1 ought to be in >the list that some-one posted of Laws that the players ought >to know. > >IMHO, all articles ought to be on that list. > >"Nul n'est cens=E9 ignorer la loi" >(please correct my spelling Alain) > >I realize that players are not expected to know the rules, >and I won't rule against them when they don't, but I won't >rule for them either. >Not when I'd rule against someone who did know the law in >question. If the TD is never called, there is never an adjustment. Trivial case. If the TD is called *before* Law 21B3 goes into effect, the player=20 may change his call. Also, it seems to me, trivial, in the context of=20 this discussion. If the TD is called *after* Law 21B3 goes into effect, the player may=20 not change his call. No question about that. But "the TD may award an=20 adjusted score." The criterion for judgement on that question is=20 whether the NOS were damaged by the failure to alert, *not* whether=20 they "protected" themselves. It seems to me that if the NOS were=20 experienced enough to realize they should have called the TD, they=20 rate a PP (warning, for a first offense) for failure to follow=20 correct procedure. This is, or should be, a consideration separate=20 from, and independent of, the ruling on the question of damage. 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/AwUBOs+NZ72UW3au93vOEQIL7QCg2gg2Lf+63gczm1tu+wsvrmsfTbIAoLPd C291PwwIcXEj5dPV7HlLcEJh =K2dA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 07:58:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37LwHY14276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 07:58:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f37Lw8t14234 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 07:58:09 +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 f37Ltam08146 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:55:37 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001501c0bf4a$498df8a0$b18869d5@vnmvhhid> References: <013f01c0bed7$1b2db400$79e2f1c3@default> <4MywTeA7Vnz6Ewed@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001501c0bf4a$498df8a0$b18869d5@vnmvhhid> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:57:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Appeals in the ACBL [was L93B - Appeals Committee powers] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >There can be no appeal to the NA, because there has been no appeal. This brings up a point that's been bugging me a little. I infer from some things I've read here that, at NABCs at least, appeals are no longer allowed below the top level games. Is this true? If so, what is the ABCL's rationale - and where is their legal justification? 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+AwUBOs+Nbb2UW3au93vOEQLn2QCVHXH2fXwoB7phGGAXA6h39soiygCggaDO O0LinNnUSTlLWLPXMewoiik= =pT1m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 08:33:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37MXNS26833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 08:33:23 +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.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f37MXGt26793 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 08:33:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP249.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.11]) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01857 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 15:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200104071732130660.0142DBCF@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: <013f01c0bed7$1b2db400$79e2f1c3@default> <4MywTeA7Vnz6Ewed@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001501c0bf4a$498df8a0$b18869d5@vnmvhhid> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 17:32:13 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals in the ACBL [was L93B - Appeals Committee powers] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >This brings up a point that's been bugging me a little. I infer from >some things I've read here that, at NABCs at least, appeals are no >longer allowed below the top level games. Is this true? If so, what >is the ABCL's rationale - and where is their legal justification? Appeals are allowed at any level of game at an NABC. The difference is that non-NABC events (that is, the regionally-rated games, or "side games" as they're still sometimes called) the appeals are heard by a panel of TDs rather than a committee made up of players. Appeals in national (NABC) events -- in general, those listed in the schedule in all capital letters -- are heard by members of the national appeals committee. (This includes some restricted games, such as flights B and C of the Grand National Teams.) 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 Sun Apr 8 08:44:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f37Mifi00854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 08:44:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f37MiXt00814 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 08:44:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-16.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.16]) by amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 475BF175FA for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:44:27 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:41:59 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson (Sat 07 Apr 2001 18:36) writes: >Brambledown writes >>David Stevenson (Sat 07 Apr 2001 02:18) writes: >>>Brambledown writes >>>>David Stevenson (Thu 29 Mar 2001 17:46) writes: >>>>>Brambledown writes >>>>No, David. I'm sorry, but this won't do. >>>>The question which you answered in the affirmative was: >>>>>>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 do not see that you can refuse L64C redress here *unless* you have saddled >>>>yourself with the notion that equity is fixed at the outset of the hand. >>> Indeed. Well, you can put whatever words you like into my mouth, but >>>I am not "saddling" myself with anything, and I do not believe that >>>equity is fixed at the outset of the hand. >>Well that is progress indeed, but you have avoided the obvious question. >>If you are now agreeing that equity is not fixed at the outset of the hand, >>why are you refusing L64C redress in the above example? > Because it did not feel right. You gave a very vague situation, and I >guessed an answer as well as I could, not realising [a] that you would >assume my answer meant I meant something else about a different >situation and [b] the Spanish Inquisition was following on behind. > > If you want more accurate answers you would do well to give more >detailed questions. I'm sorry you feel hounded but this is what is likely to happen when you give an abrupt and (IMO) ill-considered answer to a question. There is nothing at all vague about the question in the example above. It is a relatively straightforward L64 question such as, I imagine, might be put in a TD course. If you are happy to rule "no L64C redress" on the basis that "it does not feel right" there is little more to be said. If it were a live situation, however, I surmise that you would be lucky to find the NOS as accommodating. 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 Apr 8 11:42:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f381fW701887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:41:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f381fPt01883 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:41:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt9cg.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.165.144]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA18327 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:41:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <017501c0bfcd$4c3645c0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "BLML" References: <011301c0bc27$0065ec80$5fd936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A "did he do enough to protect himself" ruling Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 20:43:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: > > Konrad, was this the case? What would 2NT have meant in > response to 2H? > > If so, the misexplanation of 2S has contributed to South's > failure to ask the meaning of 2NT, making it even clearer > that poor South is entitled to an adjusted score rather than > having to put up with a lot of know-it-alls who know that > South should have divined that he should have asked the > meaning of the unalerted 2NT. These know-it-alls seem to > expect South to play near-perfect bridge, picking up all the > inferences from EW's bidding methods which might be > unfamiliar to him, and perhaps they also expect South to know > EW's bidding system better (perhaps) than the non-alerting West. > > West fails to alert. It seems to me that EW both misexplained > an earlier bid too. South is confronted by an unusual auction > and is meant to decipher exactly which infraction West > committed - from South's point of view, perhaps the error > was that the 2H bid includes 20-21 balanced and 2NT was > not alertable. Is South meant to help a possibly-confused > West out by giving West a chance to write down what's really happening > (remember that written explanantions are required > with screens)? Can't South simply play bridge? Does South > have to draw the right conclusions about the reason for the opponent's > infraction? Just because we now know (in retrospect) > that West's 2NT did show one of the suit combinations (which it > didn't have to; it could be playable for 3C to show "clubs and > a red suit"), do we have to present our biased position of knowing > what happened to South? Must we tell South that we who now > know what happened say that at the time South should with less > information available have drawn the same conclusion which is obvious to > those of us who now have all the time in the world to examine the hand? > Is South allowed to be human? > > > Scott Cardell's post has convinced me that South is being > treated meanly by a lot of the commentators, who IMO are > living in a theoretical rather than a practical world by putting > all this pressure on South to be EW's alerting assistant. > > > Herman de Wael wrote: > >South should have asked what 2NT meant, regardless > >of there being an alert or not. > > Herman, don't you find bridge slow enough when you play > with screens? Do you really have to insist that players > potentially waste time asking the meaning of unalerted > bids? Do you also require that South re-check the meaning > of 2H just in case it included a balanced 20-21 which either: > - West omitted to mention last time, or > - South missed in the scrawl earlier, or > > Has West turned up with a balanced 20-21, we in retrospect > would have looked at this problem by stating "when West > doesn't alert 2NT, South obviously will realise that West left > out the 20-21 meaning of 2H". > > There were so many possibilities at the time of South's > failure to ask about 2NT. For space reasons, I have > discussed only some of them. We have the problem of being > biased observers in that we see the problem later and we are > presented with more data than South had at his disposal. > I agree 100%. Very well reasoned indeed. Put me in the Peter Gill--Scott Cardell--David Stevenson camp on this one. MI is obvious. This is not your everyday failure to alert Stayman in England. There are several possible meanings for West's 2N besides naming two specific suits. It could be natural and strong, and it could be neutral and waiting (perhaps to right-hand the contract). Even if after after 60-seconds thought, a player could deduce that EW would only play a system where 2N has to be alertable, I still say put the burden on those who fail to alert, not those who do not always allocate part of their time to deducing failures to alert in unusual auctions. Bridge is a timed game and nonalerters should not gain advantages, as they did here. As for the other camp, we see this so often: Directors, commitees, and comme ntators, with extra information and plenty of time for thought, flatter themselves that they would have surely found the winning decision in a few seconds, and therefore deny NOs any redress at. There are dozens of such cases in the NABC casebooks. It is trap we often fall into. I wish we could find a solution to this biased-observer problem. It might help if these kinds of problems were presented differently . In this case, state the problem from South's point of view with the exact information he had at the time and the same time constraints to some players who might be South's peers and see what they say. If one of them does not instantly ask the meaning of the unalerted 2N bid, then I think we have proven MI. More BLML problems should be stated this way too. The idea would be to minimize the biased-observer problem. (Or should it be called the 20-20 hindsight problem?) I wish ACs followed this proceedure every time in similar cases. 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 Sun Apr 8 12:24:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f382NiI01925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:23:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f382Ndt01921 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:23:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010408022334.ROIG26465.femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 19:23:34 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals in the ACBL [was L93B - Appeals Committee powers] Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 19:27:01 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (This includes >some restricted games, such as flights B and C of the Grand National >Teams.) > Nope - they have to be NABC+ events... ie: unrestricted The limited games you mention are supposed to be heard by Director Panels... there was one mess up that was heard by an ad-hoc committee by accident... Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 12:34:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f382YRn01939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:34:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f382YKt01935 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:34:21 +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 f381npb14129; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:49:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200104071732130660.0142DBCF@mail.earthlink.net> References: <013f01c0bed7$1b2db400$79e2f1c3@default> <4MywTeA7Vnz6Ewed@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001501c0bf4a$498df8a0$b18869d5@vnmvhhid> <200104071732130660.0142DBCF@mail.earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:43:39 -0400 To: "Brian Baresch" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals in the ACBL [was L93B - Appeals Committee powers] Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Appeals are allowed at any level of game at an NABC. The difference is that >non-NABC events (that is, the regionally-rated games, or "side games" as >they're still sometimes called) the appeals are heard by a panel of TDs >rather than a committee made up of players. Appeals in national (NABC) >events -- in general, those listed in the schedule in all capital letters >-- are heard by members of the national appeals committee. (This includes >some restricted games, such as flights B and C of the Grand National >Teams.) Ah. I misunderstood, then. Good. And thanks for clearing it up. :-) 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/AwUBOs/OKb2UW3au93vOEQJhvwCgm5Mc68mfIXNgrCJrpvaLvPCD1eMAnA1K Ra7jc+O/XIUUtbPb4bOWD0V0 =QsU1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 12:46:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f382kTP01956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:46:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f382kOt01952 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:46:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010408024621.RYLJ26465.femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 19:46:21 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 19:49:48 -0700 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: <200104062123.RAA12296@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >> From: "David Burn" >> Perhaps, in its next revision, >> the WBF Laws Commission might consider issuing two publications, one >> entitled "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge", and the other "The >> Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge that We Would Like You to Remember". > >This is actually quite a good idea. I've toyed with the idea of >writing the second book by deleting the Laws that only TD's need to >know, but in practice I'm unlikely ever to do the job. Maybe someone >else would like to try. > Reminds me of the book I got from the USGA a few years ago... "Snoopy explains the rules of golf" :-) It did some good, but I think they could have found a better title.... However, in golf, there are penalties for failing to follow rules so the player has a reason to learn them.... if they don't they get disqualified from competition (even at the "club" level) Doesn't seem to be the case in bridge - I fear we have a huge uphill battle... but I certainly am in favor of undertaking it... In fact, I am in a battle now - when the new Alert procedure comes out, I want a "what if things go wrong" section to explain to the players who do care, what to do when things do go wrong.... ie. misexplanations, calls not alerted followed by an alerted call... most the folks who would like to follow correct procedure have no idea how to do so... Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 13:12:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f383CUf01989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:12:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f383COt01985 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:12:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt9cg.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.165.144]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA11994 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:12:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01d401c0bfda$00aeb800$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <200103281840.KAA12762@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:14:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 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. > > 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. > We have a law, 27B2, with a provision that some disagree with. Okay, maybe nobody explain why we have the conventional aspect of L27B2 to everyone's satisfaction, and maybe it will be changed someday to be just how many would prefer. That is fine. However, the ruling cited above falls under L27B2. "We told him to try again" does not sound like a self-corrected mechanical error. If a director in a case like this knows the correct ruling under the law, can he really disregard the law when he does not personally agree with it? Is that what happened here? In general, if any director can disregard any law that he does not personally agree with it, what is the point of laws? Just have every director rule how they feel best. We do not even need a law book, do we? Just rule how you want to rule, and disregard the rest. Directors should not only read, but follow TFLB. 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 Sun Apr 8 14:07:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3846mZ02261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:06:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3846et02257 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:06:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt9cg.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.165.144]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA23574 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 00:06:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <023901c0bfe1$97eccfc0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] What is the meaning of equity in L84D and L12C3? Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:08:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" 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 Can anyone give a careful definition of "equity" as it applies to L84D and L12C3? (If my question is too vague, I am looking for a technical definition,if possible. I want a careful definition that a mathematician, economist, or philosopher could understand and be satisfied with. If it takes several sentences, that is fine! If there is out there somewhere else on the web, or in some previous BLML post, that is fine too. I feel more and more confused about equity.) 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 Sun Apr 8 15:16:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f385Fxq02323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:15:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f385Frt02319 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:15:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt9cg.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.165.144]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA02305; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 01:15:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <027301c0bfeb$42897ba0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002901c0bc71$41f3d8c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 00:17:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > The constraints of L12C2 should make it less likely that different > adjustments will result, even though it happens a lot. The fault lies > not in L12C2, but in those who don't understand it. If TDs/ACs can't > handle L12C2 properly, they are certainly not ready for the > unconstrained version of L12C3. > > > The difference is that this is considerably less fair for > > the players involved when it happens under L12C2. > > You could be right, but that only means to me that L12C2 should be > better implemented, not that it should be weakened. Both laws can be > unfairly applied. It's misleading to compare the fairness of L12C3 as > used by knowledgeable people on BLML to the fairness of L12C2 as used by > those who do not know what BLML is. > > > > >> In cases that do not involve MI I think L12C3 will be rarer, but > my > > >> guess is that L12C3 will be used, once people are used to it, in at > > >> least 50% of assigned adjusted scores. > > > > > >Not in ACBL-land, thankfully. > > > > While it is reasonable to object to it, the reasons you give in this > > post are actually reasons in favour of implementing L12C3. > > > I guess I have trouble getting my points across. > Well Marv, I have been reading your many posts on L12C3 and the need for rules that result in consistent rulings, here and in RGB, and *finally* I found one sentence of yours to disagree with: I do not think that you have had any trouble getting your points across. You have changed my mind, and I now think that until we get ACBL directors and ACs to understand L12C2 much better than they do now, adopting L12C3 over here must be a serious mistake. Perhaps we should tip our hats to European directors that understand and execute L12C2 so well that they cannot imagine what we over here are worried about. (Email can be misunderstood---I really do mean this. We hear that European directors get together after an event and usually agree on the vast majority of their rulings, and that is very impressive.) 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 Sun Apr 8 15:25:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f385PbJ02335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:25:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f385PUt02331 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:25:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt9cg.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.165.144]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA07995 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 01:25:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <027701c0bfec$9b443720$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010403093016.00a93680@127.0.0.1> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010403093016.00a93680@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010403131611.00b1cda0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 00:27:28 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:10 AM 4/3/01, David wrote: > > >Eric Landau writes > > > > >So even if we were to reach the nirvana in which every committee > > >applied L12C2 in exactly the same way, introducing L12C3 would give > > >them the opportunity to introduce new inconsistencies. And I would > > >argue further that we have a far better chance to provide clear > > >guidelines and educate our committees to apply them correctly if we > > >stick to the interpretation of "likely" and "at all probable" and don't > > >have to worry about doing the same for "do equity", which is a lot more > > >nebulous a concept. > > > > Sure, it is easier: it is just less fair and leads to much greater > >injustices. > > No, it is more fair and leads to "much greater injustices". A penalty > is "fair" if it is known to potential transgressors and is applied > uniformly and consistently, if everyone knows that "if they do the > crime they'll do the time". Whether it is also "an injustice" depends > on what it is. If one AC gives a pair 20% too much while the AC in the > next room is giving a pair that committed the same infraction in the > same situation 60% too much, the two pairs will, on average, have been > treated more "justly" but less fairly than if both ACs gave the same > 60% too much. Marv argues that players are better served, and would > much prefer, being treated fairly than by being given adjustments that > will sometimes, but only some of the time and only for some of the > transgressors, be more appropriately in proportion to the severity of > their infraction, and I agree. > > We therefore believe that we best serve our players by taking the > easier road to fairness, by making our rulings fair first, by not > handicapping ourselves with the less important goal of achieving > perfect "justice" (AKA perfect "equity") at the same time. > Yes, lets get fairness down first---we have a long ways to go. Fairness and consistency first, then maybe justice. That is my taste too. A two-trick penalty for my revoke, as spelled out in the laws, as long as it applies the same way to all contestants, is far more bearable to me than any small penalty involving director discretion that seems to be applied unevenly. 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 Sun Apr 8 15:31:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f385VkK02348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:31:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f385Vdt02344 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:31:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt9cg.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.165.144]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA25208 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 01:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <028101c0bfed$7765f9a0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010404091529.00b24bb0@127.0.0.1> <005c01c0bdf9$840684e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 00:33:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > In my view, L12C3 is less damaging than L12C2 > with poor TDs and ACs. > I find this surprising. Could someone elaborate? I would think poor TDs and ACs would have a much easier time making a mess of rulings involving L12C3 than L12C2. 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 Sun Apr 8 15:44:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f385iNc02365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:44:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f385iHt02361 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:44:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP263.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.25]) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01988; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200104080043160870.02CD8F30@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 00:43:16 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: ltrent@home.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals in the ACBL [was L93B - Appeals Committee powers] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >(This includes >>some restricted games, such as flights B and C of the Grand National >>Teams.) >> > >Nope - they have to be NABC+ events... ie: unrestricted > >The limited games you mention are supposed to be heard >by Director Panels... there was one mess up that was >heard by an ad-hoc committee by accident... Hmm. Some guys I know were in an appeal in the GNT-B at Anaheim; I remember Jeff Meckstroth was chair of the appeals committee. Is that the incident you're thinking of? It's the one I based my response on. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 16:30:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f386Tk102410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:29:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f386Tft02406 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:29:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010408062938.WFQY26465.femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:29:38 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals in the ACBL [was L93B - Appeals Committee powers] Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:33:48 -0700 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: <200104080043160870.02CD8F30@mail.earthlink.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>(This includes >>>some restricted games, such as flights B and C of the Grand National >>>Teams.) >>> >> >>Nope - they have to be NABC+ events... ie: unrestricted >> >>The limited games you mention are supposed to be heard >>by Director Panels... there was one mess up that was >>heard by an ad-hoc committee by accident... > >Hmm. Some guys I know were in an appeal in the GNT-B at Anaheim; I remember >Jeff Meckstroth was chair of the appeals committee. Is that the incident >you're thinking of? It's the one I based my response on. > >Best regards, >Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net >Lawrence, Kansas, USA >Editing, writing, proofreading > Yup - the one and only one.... Good detective work... Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 17:13:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f387Dgo02449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:13:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f387Dat02445 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:13:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP012.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.20]) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03380 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 00:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200104080212340520.031F52A3@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 02:12:34 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals in the ACBL [was L93B - Appeals Committee powers] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>>The limited games you mention are supposed to be heard >>>by Director Panels... there was one mess up that was >>>heard by an ad-hoc committee by accident... >> >>Hmm. Some guys I know were in an appeal in the GNT-B at Anaheim; I >remember >>Jeff Meckstroth was chair of the appeals committee. Is that the incident >>you're thinking of? It's the one I based my response on. > >Yup - the one and only one.... OK, I'm actually in the room for *one* appeal in a national event, and it's the sole exception to a rule, so naturally I later get the rule wrong in front of a bunch of people. But now I know. That's something. Thanks for the correction. 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 Sun Apr 8 20:24:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38ANMm02607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:23:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f38ANFt02603 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:23:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.215.165] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14mCLc-0006Iz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 08 Apr 2001 11:23:09 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c0c015$be032fe0$a5d77ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@village.uunet.be> <2xws9XARMfz6Ew8h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACEE22B.35DB489D@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:21:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >DB seems to be saying that he wants to give redress because you cannot expect players to know that they have a right under L21B1. Not "because". I want to give redress because players have a right not to be damaged by misinformation given them by the opponents. Whether or not they know Law 21 and Law 9 does not affect that basic right. >In that case, David (B), would you give redress to DWS or HDW when, in full knowledge that we have the L21B1 right, we remark an irregularity in alerting but do not draw attention to it, and don't call the TD, and don't get our L21B1 right offered, and then claim damage because we would have bid differently ? It would depend only on whether or not I believe your claim that you would have bid differently. You and DWS seem to me to consider that because a player is able to claim that he would have bid differently after the event, instead of actually having to bid differently at the table, that player enjoys some unfair advantage. He does not. Although it is true that after the event, a player may be better placed to decide on what alternative actions might have worked better for his side, and then to claim that he would have taken one of those actions, this claim still has to be believed by the director or committee. >Maybe it is the case, David, that you would indeed still allow redress. That means that you are giving us two an advantage, simply because we are well versed in the laws. What advantage? If you can prove your claim of damage, then you are entitled to redress; if you cannot, then you are not. You seem to me to consider that redress will automatically be given to a player who claims damage after the event, and that therefore it is in the player's interests to wait until after the event and not to follow L9 procedure. It is not, for redress will not automatically be given; damage has to be proved. >Or maybe you would refuse to DWS and HDW what you would allow to some poor slob who never RTFLB; then you are putting us at a disadvantage, simply because we have at some time RTFLB. What disadvantage? If the poor slob can prove his claim of damage, then he is entitled to redress; if he cannot, then he is not. The difficulty I have is that I believe that cases arising from possible damage due to misinformation should be handled uniformly, regardless of when the misinformation came to light. Suppose the misinformation does not come to light until the end of the play: the non-offending side then has the right to claim damage on the basis of what they might have done if correctly informed. If they can prove their claim, they are entitled to redress. Now, I do not see that this right should be lost because the misinformation comes to light at an earlier point. Law 21B says that a player may change his call if it was made on the basis of misinformation - it does not say that he must exercise the option to do so as soon as the misinformation comes to light, or forever lose the right to claim redress for damage. A tendency appears to have arisen to treat the non-offending side - the side that has been misinformed - as the villains of the piece, while treating the offenders - the side that has done the misinforming - as poor victims of unscrupulous bridge lawyers who deliberately delay summoning the director in order to procure some unfair advantage for themselves. This is simply not the case. >I do not believe either position is tenable. I believe that one of them is. There are no prizes for guessing which one. >Which leaves just the alternative of denying redress to us and the poor slob equally. What I want to do is to treat you and the poor slob equally: I will give you redress if you can prove damage; if you cannot, I will not. What I refuse to do is conduct a dialogue like this: "So, Mr Slob, you say that if you had been correctly informed, you would have done X?" "Yes." "Then why, when the misinformation came to light, did you not call the director and ask if you could change your call to X? He would have let you do that under Law 21B." "Because I thought it was too late to do anything about it once I had made my call." "Tough luck. You should have known better. Next case." In fairness, I should say that the alternative is a dialogue like this: "So, Mr de Wael, you say that if you had been correctly informed, you would have done X?" "Yes." "Then why, when the misinformation came to light, did you not call the director and ask if you could change your call to X? As you very well know, he would have let you do that under Law 21B." "Because I chose not to draw attention to the irregularity and summon the director under Law 9, which says only that I may do this, not that I must." "Then, although I consider you to be a reprehensible toad with no redeeming features whatever, I suppose I must examine your claim that you would indeed have done X." But at least, in this scenario, both you and the poor slob will have your claim for damage heard, and will be treated equally under the laws. In the alternative scenario, this will not happen. >What it boils down to is whether or not L21B1 ought to be in the list that some-one posted of Laws that the players ought to know. Not really. What it boils down to is that, if you want your position to be adopted, the laws need to be changed to make a call for the director mandatory should misinformation come to light while it is still possible for a call based on that misinformation to be changed. >I realize that players are not expected to know the rules, and I won't rule against them when they don't, but I won't rule for them either. Not when I'd rule against someone who did know the law in question. I, on the other hand, would rule equally for or against players whether or not they knew the laws. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 8 20:32:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38AVwj02626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:31:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f38AVnt02618 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:31:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f38AVfx24286 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:31:41 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:31 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke/What is equity...? 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: > >What is equity? Why not say "It is the maximum number of tricks the > NOS >could expect to *take at the table* at any time during the play." > > I have kept out of this argument generally, because I am not too sure > what equity is, but it certainly is not what is suggested here. Equity > is the number of tricks/result that the two sides would expect to take > between them, not the maximum one side expects to take. That is one > thing I am sure of. But how to define it otherwise, no I am not so > sure. OK, I'll try again. To start with I was only considering equity in a particular contract (ie there was no infraction during the bidding). I think we can all agree that the concept of equity is irrelevant until an infraction occurs. So "Equity is --something-- from the point of first infraction." I would also postulate that equity must result in the same score to each side. This is not to say non-balancing adjustments are wrong just that if an adjustment is designed to "do equity" one side's score must be the converse of the others (PPs will obviously be a separate issue). Obviously during play this means that the number of tricks awarded must be 13 in total so "Equity is the (--something--) number of tricks the NOS from the point of first infraction." I was definitely wrong to use maximum. Perhaps something like "highest reasonably expected" would fit (NOS are given the benefit of the doubt when determining equity are they not). However, I think we are agreed that equity changes as decisions are made. IOW if declarer sometime after an infraction takes an unrelated two-way finesse successfully (or unsuccessfully) the equity changes at the point of the finesse. I don't quite know how to work this in to the above definition but I think it needs to be there. And finally, we need to decide whether equity includes "penalty tricks not yet transferred". This was the issue I tried to address in my flawed suggestion and I think on this one the jury is still out. 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 Apr 8 20:32:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38AVwt02625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:31:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f38AVnt02617 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:31:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f38AVfa24278 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:31:41 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:31 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke/What is equity...? 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: > Why should we specify tricks *at the table*? After trick 4, the > defence will make five tricks "on any rational legal line of play" and > declarer's trick 5 revoke has reduced this to four tricks. This is definitely not the case. The defence will *never* make more than three tricks. They will subsequently be awarded some tricks as a result of the revoke penalty. As to why we should treat this way firstly there are indications that this was the intent of the lawmakers when the revoke laws were written, secondly the words of law 64C imply that the revoke penalty is not "part of equity" rather something to be "compared to equity". > Whether or > not these are "actual tricks" or L64A1 penalty tricks is surely > immaterial - the defence has been damaged. It would be immaterial if we say "any revoke penalties immediately become part of the NOS equity once they are applicable". As I have said this is also a reasonable argument. Without an agreed definition of equity *both* interpretations are correct. 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 Apr 9 01:10:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38F9Oo17277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:09:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe16.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f38F9Ht17241 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:09:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 08:09:10 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.165.238] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What is equity in a revoke situation? Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:59:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2001 15:09:10.0397 (UTC) FILETIME=[DD4182D0:01C0C03D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bridge is a measurement of risks and rewards through the actions of bidding and play. Expectations are defined by what the players do and what is communicated and not communicated. Certainly, when a hand is played free of irregularities the outcome is equitable. After an irregularity which damages if you want to approach equity I would point you to assign an outcome which neither side would feel likely of convincing a committee that they earned some other score. roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 01:17:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38FHRf20104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:17:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f38FHKt20067 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:17:21 +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 14mGwG-000Gd9-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:17:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:13:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002901c0bc71$41f3d8c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <027301c0bfeb$42897ba0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <027301c0bfeb$42897ba0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.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 <027301c0bfeb$42897ba0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com>, Jerry Fusselman writes snip >better than they do now, adopting L12C3 over here must be a serious mistake. > >Perhaps we should tip our hats to European directors that understand and >execute L12C2 so well that they cannot imagine what we over here are worried >about. (Email can be misunderstood---I really do mean this. We hear that >European directors get together after an event and usually agree on the vast >majority of their rulings, and that is very impressive.) > The impressive thing is how much we drink. :)) Apart from that we discuss the day's business and make observations on rulings. It's very useful. -- 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 Apr 9 02:36:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38GaJF18458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 02:36:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe11.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.115]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f38GaDt18429 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 02:36:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:36:06 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.54.104.178] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:34:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2001 16:36:06.0747 (UTC) FILETIME=[02715AB0:01C0C04A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Zelig of RGB posted this query. I thought it might provoke some interesting discussion. roger pewick Contarct 4S Declarer needs the last three tricks, EW have only red cards left. N - Axx - - S x Q - x West leads a H and declarer, thinking it was a D, claims, saying he'll ruff the D, cash his C and play H to the A. Upon realizing a H was led and not a D, he says he'll win the A, ruff a H and cash his C. The director was called and ruled the claim couldn't be changed, the original claim constituted a revoke and awarded EW two tricks. Was this correct? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 03:31:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38HVJE07961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 03:31:19 +1000 (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 f38HVDt07930 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 03:31:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 10:27:26 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c0c051$ab8e7d60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Jerry Fusselman" , "blml" References: <023901c0bfe1$97eccfc0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is the meaning of equity in L84D and L12C3? Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:38:23 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Can anyone give a careful definition of "equity" as it applies to L84D and > L12C3? Using what I believe is Grattan's definition, as good as any, "equity" in duplicate bridge is the restoration (or preservation) of what each side had coming at the instant before an irregularity occurred. L84D refers to such situations as the one described in L64C for revokes. When the revoke penalty is insufficient for the NOS, a score adjustment can restore equity, taking away any advantage that was gained by the OS. Such an adjustment cannot be made unless the option is offered, however. Just because a penalty seems inequitable does not make a score adjustment appropriate (L12B). L12A1 is there for providing equity after a damaging irregularity for which there is no prescribed penalty. So far, Grattan's definition holds. I would be interested to know of other applications of L84D. As for L12C3, there seem to be two interpretations of "equity" as used there. (1) An AC can impose any score adjustment it thinks is appropriate, with no constraints. This is redefining "equity" as meaning any actions that the AC believes mete out the right amount of justice for each side. Score adjustments may be affected by factors other than than those cited by L12C2. (2) An AC, after applying L12C2 and finding a number of potential results, assigns a score for each side that reflects the probabilities of those results, with a moderate bias in favor of the NOS for scores assigned to them. This is also redefining "equity," since it can result in each side's getting more (NOS) or less (OS) than it had coming before the irregularity. Definition (2) seems to be taking hold, thank goodness. It appears, therefore, that "equity" cannot be defined in a way that is compatible with all of its usages in the Laws. > If my question is too vague, I am looking for a technical definition,if > possible. I want a careful definition that a mathematician, economist, or > philosopher could understand and be satisfied with. If it takes several > sentences, that is fine! If there is out there somewhere else on the web, or > in some previous BLML post, that is fine too. I feel more and more confused > about equity.) 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 Apr 9 03:32:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38HVts08172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 03:31:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f88.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f38HVnt08143 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 03:31:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 10:31:41 -0700 Received: from 152.163.205.72 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:31:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.205.72] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 10:31:41 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2001 17:31:41.0749 (UTC) FILETIME=[C6424650:01C0C051] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk An impossible claim statement is dismissed, not followed. The revoke cannot be established because it's an illegal line of play. But claim statement is not quite bunk. Declarer wants 3 tricks -- a ruff, the good heart, and the good club; and those still exist on a heart lead, just in a different order. At worst, 1 trick to the defense if you think declarer is about to duck the H to the Q and east holds the K. While I think that's an unreasonable ruling, it's at least (more apparently) legal. -Todd >From: "Roger Pewick" >To: "blml" >Subject: [BLML] claiming a revoke >Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:34:29 -0500 > >Zelig of RGB posted this query. I thought it might provoke some >interesting discussion. > >roger pewick > > >Contarct 4S >Declarer needs the last three tricks, EW have only red cards left. > >N >- >Axx >- >- > >S >x >Q >- >x > >West leads a H and declarer, thinking it was a D, claims, saying he'll >ruff the D, cash his C and play H to the A. Upon realizing a H was >led >and not a D, he says he'll win the A, ruff a H and cash his C. > >The director was called and ruled the claim couldn't be changed, the >original claim constituted a revoke and awarded EW two tricks. > >Was this correct? > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 04:14:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38IDkY22905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 04:13:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.0.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f38IDdt22870 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 04:13:40 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 63A05983C9; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:13:36 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:13:28 -0400 To: "Roger Pewick" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Cc: "blml" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:34 AM -0500 4/8/01, Roger Pewick wrote: >The director was called and ruled the claim couldn't be changed, the >original claim constituted a revoke and awarded EW two tricks. > >Was this correct? No. I posted a case like this here in December with the subject "A unique claim and revoke". I should have known better than to think it would remain unique! At 10:31 AM -0700 4/8/01, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >An impossible claim statement is dismissed, not followed. The >revoke cannot be established because it's an illegal line of play. Just so. The way I think of it is that for a revoke to be established it's not enough for declarer to say he's going to revoke, he must actually do so. AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 04:33:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38IXEd29809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 04:33:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f38IX8t29775 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 04:33:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:29:22 -0700 Message-ID: <002401c0c05a$52c97d20$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] L12C2 vs L12C3 Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:31:55 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Let's look at an Anaheim NABC appeal (No. 39) and see whether it should be easier to apply L12C2 or L12C3: Mixed Pairs Aug 18, 1st session Vulnerability: none Dealer: North S- KJ832 H- Q1098 D- 5 C- KQ5 S- 74 S-10 H- 5 H- K7632 D- K1073 D- QJ9864 C- 987643 C- A S- AQ965 H- AJ5 D- A2 C- J102 The bidding: West North East South P P 1S P 2D* 2H 2NT P 4S All pass *Limit raise with four spades, not Alerted The TD ruled that experienced players can protect themselves and allowed the table result to stand. This was appealed, of course. East said he would have bid 3D over an Alerted 2D but without the Alert feared that a double might be misinterpreted as takeout. (It's better for players to just appeal without saying why, keeping their mouths shut until there is a need to rebut AC opinions. "Anything you say may be used against you" might be good advice by the TD.) The Panel Decision: Three players were consulted. All mentioned that a 2S bid by East with the correct information would have been best but East's contention that he would have bid 3D was reasonable. Two of the three players expressed the concern that North's choice of 4S rather than 4D (splinter) might have taken advantage of the failure to Alert. All thought that with the correct information, even with South in the dark about the meaning of North's 2D, there was very little if any chance that the final contract would have been anything other than 4S or 5S, making six. The player who was most positive about 5D doubled becoming the final contract only gave it a 10-20% chance; the one who believed it least likely termed its likelihood "beyond the wit of man." The Panel decided that MI existed (L75) and that a different auction would have ensued without it. Although North's 4S bid was considered to be an illegal choice (L16A: a player "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information"), by the standards of L12C2, the Panel believed that a score adjustment was not indicated. Therefore, the table result stands. Well, there you have an L12C2-based decision, arrived at with much difficulty. In defense of the TD Panel, they are required to give much weight to the player consultants' opinions. What would have happened with L12C3 in effect? Just imagine the extended calculations to arrive at percentage chances for 4S, 5S, 5D doubled, 6D doubled, 6S, 7D doubled, or whatever. Much more difficult. Not to mention that such calculations are illusory, based on little more than crystal-ball guesses about what players might actually have done. Ron Gerard gave a scenario in which N/S ended in 5D (North cue bidding, thinking spades are agreed) down 8! If I were a TD, I would look at those 10 diamonds E-W, and in 10 seconds give both sides a 5D doubled result +100/-100, applying L12C2. 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 Mon Apr 9 05:25:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38JP2R06742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 05:25:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f38JOtt06738 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 05:24:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qta7k.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.168.244]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA18943; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:24:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007601c0c061$ca68cb40$f4a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <002401c0c05a$52c97d20$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C2 vs L12C3 (an aside) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:26:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > (It's better for players to just appeal without saying why, keeping > their mouths shut until there is a need to rebut AC opinions. > "Anything you say may be used against you" might be good advice > by the TD.) > Though this is not your main point, could you elaborate? I thought the appeal sequence of events was 1. Director states facts, laws, and rulings. 2. Players say what they have to say. 3. AC adjourns to privately consider what to do. 4. AC issues its finding. 5. There is no more discussion. Where do players get a chance to rebut AC opinions? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 05:47:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38Jkv506763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 05:46:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium (ruthenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f38Jkpt06759 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 05:46:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.238.16] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14mL95-0003ri-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 08 Apr 2001 20:46:47 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c0c064$779526e0$10ee7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:44:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: > Just so. The way I think of it is that for a revoke to be established > it's not enough for declarer to say he's going to revoke, he must > actually do so. I am nor sure about this at all. One might as well say that for declarer to win a trick with an ace, it's not enough for him to say he's going to do it, he must actually do so. This would have the effect of making claims impossible (which, in view of the debate they generate, might not be a bad idea). The effect of a (properly formed) claim is that, at the end of it, one is able to compute the score based on what would have happened had the claimer played his (and perhaps dummy's) cards in accordance with his statement. Here, what would have happened is that declarer would have revoked, so there is a strong argument that the score should be computed on that basis. This position has been discussed in private correspondence prior to its emergence on this list. I have suggested that what in fact would have happened if declarer had played in accordance with his statement is that he would have ruffed the heart lead, whereupon dummy would have asked him if he had any hearts. Since the end position was: None A32 None None 2 Q None A one might consider giving declarer all the tricks if West's heart lead turned out to have been from the king, two tricks otherwise. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 05:52:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38JqIw06775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 05:52:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f38JqBt06771 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 05:52:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-001.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.193]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA81971 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:51:57 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:52:40 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0C06D.D9DA3B20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:52:39 +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 Dealer North North East South West 1NT Pass (out of turn) TD called. North accepts the POOT and East also Passes. So the auction has gone: North East South West 1NT Pass (out of turn) Pass Pass There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know if he has a call? 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 Apr 9 06:05:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38K5Qg06794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 06:05:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.173]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f38K5Kt06790 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 06:05:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-148.chromium.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.23.148] helo=oemcomputer) by cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 14mLQw-00018O-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:05:15 +0100 Message-ID: <013a01c0c067$4f8d5200$9417883e@oemcomputer> From: "James Vickers" To: Subject: [BLML] Re: MI from Japan Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 21:05:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0135_01C0C06F.AD2108A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0135_01C0C06F.AD2108A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> A player makes a successful call which has been blatantly suggested = by=20 >> UI from partner. We determine that without the UI, there was a 50%=20 >> probability that he would make the same call and a 50% probability = that=20 >> he would have made one of five other calls, with equal probability,=20 >> each of which would have led to a different result which is worse for = >> the OS. Applying the above procedure, we would allow the table = result=20 >> to stand. Can that be right? > >No, of course not. The call that used UI was _illegal_; we do not >consider any illegal actions. (Read L12C2: "had the irregularity not >occurred." While there is no such stipulation for the OS, we don't >consider adjusting to a result that includes the irregularity unless >the result is _less_ favorable to the OS. For example, if their >illegal contract was due to go down but made by virtue of irrational >play by the NOS, we might adjust to "illegal contract down" rather than >"legal contract at lower level making." But this is _only_ for the OS; >the NOS result _must not_ include any vestige of an illegal action.) > >Once the illegal call is eliminated, we have the same case as Alain >gave us: five results, 20% each. I disagree, Steve. When assigning likelihoods to possible alternatives, = you surely consider how likely they would be absent the irregularity = (L16A) in order to determine whether or not the offender had any = reasonable alternatives. There were no reasonable alternatives to the = 50% call in the case Eric cites (they were all judged to be around 10%), = therefore the call chosen was legal and the table result stands.=20 It is only once logical alternatives have been found (>30% under the = EBU), the action deemed to have been suggested over and above such = alternatives, and damage thereby done to the non-offenders that L12C2 = applies. James Vickers Reading, UK ------=_NextPart_000_0135_01C0C06F.AD2108A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Steve Willner wrote:
>> From:=20 Eric Landau <elandau@cais.com>
>> A player makes a = successful call=20 which has been blatantly suggested by
>> UI from = partner.  We=20 determine that without the UI, there was a 50%
>> probability = that he=20 would make the same call and a 50% probability that
>> he = would have=20 made one of five other calls, with equal probability,
>> each = of which=20 would have led to a different result which is worse for
>> the = OS.  Applying the above procedure, we would allow the table result=20
>> to stand.  Can that be right?
>
>No, of course not.  The call that used = UI was=20 _illegal_; we do not
>consider any illegal actions.  (Read = L12C2:=20 "had the irregularity not
>occurred."  While there is no such = stipulation for the OS, we don't
>consider adjusting to a result = that=20 includes the irregularity unless
>the result is _less_ favorable = to the=20 OS.  For example, if their
>illegal contract was due to go = down but=20 made by virtue of irrational
>play by the NOS, we might adjust to = "illegal=20 contract down" rather than
>"legal contract at lower level = making." =20 But this is _only_ for the OS;
>the NOS result _must not_ include = any=20 vestige of an illegal action.)
>
>Once the illegal call is eliminated, we have = the same=20 case as Alain
>gave us: five results, 20% = each.
I disagree, Steve. When assigning = likelihoods to=20 possible alternatives, you surely consider how likely they would be = absent the=20 irregularity (L16A) in order to determine whether or not the offender = had any=20 reasonable alternatives. There were no reasonable alternatives to the = 50% call=20 in the case Eric cites (they were all judged to be around 10%), = therefore the=20 call chosen was legal and the table result stands.
 
It is only once logical alternatives have been found (>30% under = the=20 EBU), the action deemed to have been suggested over and above such = alternatives,=20 and damage thereby done to the non-offenders that L12C2 applies.
 
James Vickers
Reading, UK
 
------=_NextPart_000_0135_01C0C06F.AD2108A0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 07:00:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38Kxl820888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 06:59:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta05-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f38Kxat20840 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 06:59:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta05-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.03.02.00 201-232-124 license f747fce8063b429e7fcd66ee14ce8c58) with SMTP id <20010408210146.EUDY3491.amsmta05-svc@witz> for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 23:01:46 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010408225933.02a0ce90@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: a.witzen/mail.chello.nl@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:59:33 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? In-Reply-To: <01C0C06D.D9DA3B20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:52 PM 08-04-01 +0100, you wrote: > > Dealer North > North East South West > 1NT Pass (out of turn) > > TD called. North accepts the POOT and East also Passes. > > So the auction has gone: > North East South West > 1NT Pass (out of turn) > Pass Pass > > There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know if he has a call? > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > in fact east will be next one to call, after N; it is indeed a l34 case regards, anton > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mon Apr 9 07:59:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38Lx7i24182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 07:59:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f38Lx2t24178 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 07:59:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp222-24.worldonline.nl [195.241.222.24]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F35236F85; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 23:58:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001e01c0c077$654f2220$18def1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:00:48 +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 Fearghal O'Boyle asked: > > Dealer North > North East South West > 1NT Pass (out of turn) > > TD called. North accepts the POOT and East also Passes. > > So the auction has gone: > North East South West > 1NT Pass (out of turn) > Pass Pass > > There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know if he has a call? I believe I see what your problem is: South objects and is the player who missed his turn, but id we cancel all subsequent passes it should not be his turn to call, but it should be Easts ... Yet I would rule this in the spirit of L34: I would cancel the three passes and tell East he is to bid over 1NT - this, I trust, is the ruling the Lawmakers intended us to make. I would welcome an improvement in the text of L34 that would make L34 cover this case, of course. Jac > > 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 Mon Apr 9 08:58:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38MvjB24238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:57:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f38Mvbt24229 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:57:38 +1000 (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 14mO7e-0007vI-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 22:57:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 01:45:18 +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 sorry you feel hounded but this is what is likely to happen when you >give an abrupt and (IMO) ill-considered answer to a question. There is >nothing at all vague about the question in the example above. It is a >relatively straightforward L64 question such as, I imagine, might be put in >a TD course. It would be an extremely unfair question for a TD course, and as such would not be used. > If you are happy to rule "no L64C redress" on the basis that >"it does not feel right" there is little more to be said. If it were a live >situation, however, I surmise that you would be lucky to find the NOS as >accommodating. If it were a live situation we would have some idea of the detail pertaining 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 Mon Apr 9 08:58:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f38Mvmb24239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:57:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f38Mvet24231 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:57:40 +1000 (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 14mO7e-0007vJ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 22:57:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 01:47:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals in the ACBL [was L93B - Appeals Committee powers] References: <013f01c0bed7$1b2db400$79e2f1c3@default> <4MywTeA7Vnz6Ewed@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001501c0bf4a$498df8a0$b18869d5@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >>There can be no appeal to the NA, because there has been no appeal. > >This brings up a point that's been bugging me a little. I infer from >some things I've read here that, at NABCs at least, appeals are no >longer allowed below the top level games. Is this true? If so, what >is the ABCL's rationale - and where is their legal justification? Appeals are allowed. It is just that they use TD Panels rather than Committees, and they refer questions to player to give opinions. This is permitted under L80G. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 10:08:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3907hV24300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:07:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3907bt24296 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:07:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp086.pullman.com [204.227.174.86]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA88578 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:07:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010408170749.0073fc44@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:07:56 -0700 To: Bridge Laws From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:52 PM 4/8/01 +0100, you wrote: > > Dealer North > North East South West > 1NT Pass (out of turn) > > TD called. North accepts the POOT and East also Passes. > > So the auction has gone: > North East South West > 1NT Pass (out of turn) > Pass Pass > > There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know if he has a call? My reading of the plain language of Law 34 is that it applies: LAW 34 RETENTION OF RIGHT TO CALL When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. The auction reverts to the player who missed his turn. All subsequent passes are canceled, and the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. A call (1NT) was followed by three passes, one of those passes was out of rotation thereby depriving South of his right to call at that turn. Thus the auction reverts to South. This seems easy. Now a hard question: North East South West 1NT Pass (out of turn) Pass Pass Auction reverts to South, it then goes: North East South West 1NT Pass Pass Pass Now East wants a chance to bid, because South's pass was out of rotation (forced to be so under law 34). Can we apply Law 34 again? Should the director (now standing at the table) apply Law 34 again automatically (without East saying anything)? Is equity a concern? Suppose North had psyched and that was his reason for accepting West's pass out of turn? Does East's reason matter? A literal reading of Law 34 says Yes. I think that this is a mistake. At least in this case, the last two sentences of the law add an unnecessary complexity, the auction should simple continue. I think that the law is a poorly worded attempt to deal with: North East South West 1NT Pass POOT Pass(accepting the POOT) Here the law makes sense (the last two passes only are "subsequent" so the bidding reverts to: North East South West 1NT Pass with South to bid. Finally want about: North East South West 1NT Pass POOT Pass(accepting the POOT) Both South and West have skipped, and the law is silent on two players being deprived of their right to call. If I were ruling I would say that the intent of the law is that the bidding should revert to South, but the law does not say that. Scott -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 10:55:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f390tC024447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:55:12 +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 f390sot24425 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:54:52 +1000 (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 14mPx8-000DS4-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:54:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:36:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What is the meaning of equity in L84D and L12C3? References: <023901c0bfe1$97eccfc0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> <000001c0c051$ab8e7d60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <000001c0c051$ab8e7d60$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 >Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > >> Can anyone give a careful definition of "equity" as it applies to L84D >and >> L12C3? >As for L12C3, there seem to be two interpretations of "equity" as used >there. > >(1) An AC can impose any score adjustment it thinks is appropriate, with >no constraints. This is redefining "equity" as meaning any actions that >the AC believes mete out the right amount of justice for each side. >Score adjustments may be affected by factors other than than those cited >by L12C2. No ACs use this definition. Well, ok, ACs may go wrong, but they do not in theory. This is the famous "we don't want L12C3 in the ACBL because we do not believe there are any rules covering L12C3" camp. It does not exist, except in [a] the minds of certain people in the ACBL and [b] certain ACs which have made mistakes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 10:55:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f390tIG24452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:55:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f390stt24431 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:54:56 +1000 (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 14mPx8-000DS5-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:54:48 +0000 Message-ID: <2LcDypAcWQ06Ew2S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:43:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C2 vs L12C3 References: <002401c0c05a$52c97d20$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002401c0c05a$52c97d20$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 >Let's look at an Anaheim NABC appeal (No. 39) and see whether it >should be easier to apply L12C2 or L12C3: > >Mixed Pairs Aug 18, 1st session >Vulnerability: none >Dealer: North > > S- KJ832 > H- Q1098 > D- 5 > C- KQ5 > >S- 74 S-10 >H- 5 H- K7632 >D- K1073 D- QJ9864 >C- 987643 C- A > > S- AQ965 > H- AJ5 > D- A2 > C- J102 > >The bidding: > >West North East South > P P 1S > P 2D* 2H 2NT > P 4S All pass > >*Limit raise with four spades, not Alerted > >The TD ruled that experienced players can protect themselves and >allowed the table result to stand. This was appealed, of course. >East said he would have bid 3D over an Alerted 2D but without >the Alert feared that a double might be misinterpreted as takeout. > >(It's better for players to just appeal without saying why, keeping >their mouths shut until there is a need to rebut AC opinions. >"Anything you say may be used against you" might be good advice >by the TD.) Another "interesting" idea from the ACBL. in the EBU, WBU and WBF players are required to say why they believe the TD's ruling is wrong. If I was on an appeal where the players gave no such reason, I would keep the deposit, apply an AWMW or give a PP, as appropriate for the jurisdiction. >The Panel Decision: Three players were consulted. All mentioned that >a 2S bid by East with the correct information would have been best >but East's contention that he would have bid 3D was reasonable. Two >of the three players expressed the concern that North's choice of 4S >rather than 4D (splinter) might have taken advantage of the failure >to Alert. All thought that with the correct information, even with >South in the dark about the meaning of North's 2D, there was very >little if any chance that the final contract would have been >anything other than 4S or 5S, making six. The player who was most >positive about 5D doubled becoming the final contract only gave it >a 10-20% chance; the one who believed it least likely termed its >likelihood "beyond the wit of man." > >The Panel decided that MI existed (L75) and that a different auction >would have ensued without it. Although North's 4S bid was considered >to be an illegal choice (L16A: a player "may not choose from among >logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested >over another by the extraneous information"), by the standards of >L12C2, the Panel believed that a score adjustment was not indicated. >Therefore, the table result stands. > >Well, there you have an L12C2-based decision, arrived at with much >difficulty. In defense of the TD Panel, they are required to give >much weight to the player consultants' opinions. Given what was said, in a L12C3 jurisdiction, the ruling would be no adjustment. Are you really trying to argue against L12C3 by giving examples which are totally contrary to the way L12C3 is being used, Marv? Do you think we are totally naive? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 10:55:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f390tEX24450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:55:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f390sot24423 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:54:52 +1000 (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 14mPx8-000DS2-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:54:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:23:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong (LONG) References: <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <000f01c0bb2e$095614e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <001601c0bb4a$04ae9c20$de3a7bd5@dodona> <004201c0bc79$a9033bc0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010404091529.00b24bb0@127.0.0.1> <005c01c0bdf9$840684e0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <028101c0bfed$7765f9a0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <028101c0bfed$7765f9a0$90a5aec7@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 >David Stevenson wrote: > >> In my view, L12C3 is less damaging than L12C2 >> with poor TDs and ACs. >> > >I find this surprising. Could someone elaborate? I would think poor TDs and >ACs would have a much easier time making a mess of rulings involving L12C3 >than L12C2. Suppose there is a hand where declarer thinks have has been talked out of 6S by MI, or oppos' use of UI, or something, and has played 4S+2. Suppose, for argument's sake, that 6S= gets 80% of the matchpoints, and 4S+2 gets 30%. In a non-L12C3 jurisdiction the TD will either award 6S=, or leave the score at 4S+2. If he has made a mistake through incompetence, inexperience, or whatever, then he has made a mistake of 50% of a top. In an L12C3 jurisdiction, he might give 50% of 6S= + 50% of 4S+2, coming to 55% of a top. If the correct ruling should be "no adjustment" then he has made a mistake of 25% of a top, a lot less than 50% of a top. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 10:55:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f390tC024448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:55:12 +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 f390sot24422 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:54:52 +1000 (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 14mPx8-000DS1-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:54:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:19:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] I was wrong References: <00eb01c0b98c$a8e035c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <3AC74B61.B735ED82@netscapeonline.co.uk> <003001c0bbaa$2c957280$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <$ci+WTCfkSy6EwnU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002901c0bc71$41f3d8c0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <027301c0bfeb$42897ba0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >The impressive thing is how much we drink. :)) Apart from that we >discuss the day's business and make observations on rulings. It's very >useful. That reminds me! As you will remember [you do, don't you?] I am visiting chez Probst on Wednesday and Thursday night. Now I am playing bridge with Mike Amos, also of BLML, on Wednesday evening. That means you do not have enough whisky chez Probst. Do not say I did not warn you! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 10:55:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f390tGS24451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:55:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f390sut24436 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:54:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14mPxD-000DS1-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:54:52 +0000 Message-ID: <4L$ACtAQZQ06EwWZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:46:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? References: <001e01c0c077$654f2220$18def1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <001e01c0c077$654f2220$18def1c3@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 >Fearghal O'Boyle asked: > > >> >> Dealer North >> North East South West >> 1NT Pass (out of turn) >> >> TD called. North accepts the POOT and East also Passes. >> >> So the auction has gone: >> North East South West >> 1NT Pass (out of turn) >> Pass Pass >> >> There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know if >he has a call? > >I believe I see what your problem is: South objects and is the player >who missed his turn, but id we cancel all subsequent passes it should >not be his turn to call, but it should be Easts ... >Yet I would rule this in the spirit of L34: I would cancel the three >passes and tell East he is to bid over 1NT - this, I trust, is the >ruling the Lawmakers intended us to make. >I would welcome an improvement in the text of L34 that would make L34 >cover this case, of course. Please explain: as I read L34, all the requirements are covered so it certainly applies. What have I missed? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 10:55:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f390tD724449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:55:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f390sot24424 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:54:51 +1000 (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 14mPx8-000DS3-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:54:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:32:17 +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> <01d401c0bfda$00aeb800$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <01d401c0bfda$00aeb800$90a5aec7@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 >David Stevenson wrote: >> 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. >We have a law, 27B2, with a provision that some disagree with. Okay, maybe >nobody explain why we have the conventional aspect of L27B2 to everyone's >satisfaction, and maybe it will be changed someday to be just how many would >prefer. That is fine. > >However, the ruling cited above falls under L27B2. "We told him to try >again" does not sound like a self-corrected mechanical error. If a director >in a case like this knows the correct ruling under the law, can he really >disregard the law when he does not personally agree with it? Is that what >happened here? In general, if any director can disregard any law that he >does not personally agree with it, what is the point of laws? Just have >every director rule how they feel best. We do not even need a law book, do >we? Just rule how you want to rule, and disregard the rest. > >Directors should not only read, but follow TFLB. I do not give rulings at my table. I do not call the TD to my table at a club. This was not 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 Mon Apr 9 12:18:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f392HwQ24607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:17:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f392Hqt24603 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:17:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qta7k.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.168.244]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA10619; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 22:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005c01c0c09b$8a665500$f4a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200103281840.KAA12762@mailhub.irvine.com> <01d401c0bfda$00aeb800$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 21:19:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks for your answer, David. Well, maybe everyone else is clear on this, and if so I apologize, but four questions remain. (If this has been explained before, say in August of 1999, let me know and I can look it up.) David Stevenson wrote: > > I do not give rulings at my table. I understand this completely. Of course not. 1. Am I safe to assume that had you been the director, and if you had been called to the table, and if it was not a club game, then you would have ruled that the insufficient transfer was convention, and barred the notrump opener from the auction? 2. If is was at club game, would you still have ruled the same way? > I do not call the TD to my table > at a club. > 3. Why not? At a club, there are many times I would rather not call the director, and if I do not have to anymore, I would be delighted. Under L9B1a, it seems to me that the director must be called when there is a insufficient bid. No? Do you treat your insufficient bids differently from your opponent's? 4. Would not call the director either, even if required under L75D? How about a revoke? No director call to your table in this case either? 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 Apr 9 13:16:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f393FLB12733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:15:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com (imo-m10.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f393FEt12697 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:15:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from AlanLeBendig@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id p.104.18232bd (4004) for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 23:15:01 -0400 (EDT) From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com Message-ID: <104.18232bd.28028334@aol.com> Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 23:15:00 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_104.18232bd.28028334_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_104.18232bd.28028334_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/8/01 10:34:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kneebee@hotmail.com writes: > An impossible claim statement is dismissed, not followed. The revoke cannot > be established because it's an illegal line of play. Since when is it "illegal" to revoke? Does it make it an "illegal" claim because declarer says he is going to revoke? Would it have been legal if he had not claimed? Part of the reason we require a statement from declarer is to help us know what was going on in declarer's mind when he claimed. This declarer was clearly suffering from what we affectionatly refer to as a "brain fart". He might have realized a heart had been led prior to ruffing the trick. It is also quite possible he would not have realized it. We must recognize that. His claim establishes the revoke by law. But claim statement is > not quite bunk. Declarer wants 3 tricks -- a ruff, the good heart, and the > good club; and those still exist on a heart lead, just in a different > order. > At worst, 1 trick to the defense if you think declarer is about to duck > the H to the Q and east holds the K. While I think that's an unreasonable > ruling, it's at least (more apparently) legal. I don't think it would be at all illegal for a director to rule that a revoke has ocurred here. I would actually prefer that a director rule in this fashion and that an AC figure out a way "to do the right thing." I personally believe that the right thing is to allow declarer to score all the tricks. But at the same time, I firmly believe that players deserve to be punished for their "brain farts". That seems to be the intent of the Laws. I really like David Burn's suggestion here - declarer's clear stated intent is to play low from the dummy. If RHO plays the K and declarer ruffs the card (as stated) I am willing to accept the fact that his partner may indeed have inquired and now force him to lose the trick to the K but there would be no revoke. ANY other solution here seems to be going outside the Laws. And I cannot live with that... Alan LeBendig --part1_104.18232bd.28028334_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/8/01 10:34:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
kneebee@hotmail.com writes:


An impossible claim statement is dismissed, not followed.  The revoke cannot
be established because it's an illegal line of play.  


Since when is it "illegal" to revoke?  Does it make it an "illegal" claim
because declarer says he is going to revoke?  Would it have been legal if he
had not claimed?  Part of the reason we require a statement from declarer is
to help us know what was going on in declarer's mind when he claimed.  This
declarer was clearly suffering from what we affectionatly refer to as a
"brain fart".  He might have realized a heart had been led prior to ruffing
the trick.  It is also quite possible he would not have realized it.  We must
recognize that.  His claim establishes the revoke by law.

 But claim statement is

not quite bunk.  Declarer wants 3 tricks -- a ruff, the good heart, and the
good club; and those still exist on a heart lead, just in a different
order.
 At worst, 1 trick to the defense if you think declarer is about to duck
the H to the Q and east holds the K.  While I think that's an unreasonable
ruling, it's at least (more apparently) legal.


I don't think it would be at all illegal for a director to rule that a revoke
has ocurred here.  I would actually prefer that a director rule in this
fashion and that an AC figure out a way "to do the right thing."  I
personally believe that the right thing is to allow declarer to score all the
tricks.  But at the same time, I firmly believe that players deserve to be
punished for their "brain farts".  That seems to be the intent of the Laws.

I really like David Burn's suggestion here - declarer's clear stated intent
is to play low from the dummy.  If RHO plays the K and declarer ruffs the
card (as stated) I am willing to accept the fact that his partner may indeed
have inquired and now force him to lose the trick to the K but there would be
no revoke.  ANY other solution here seems to be going outside the Laws.  And
I cannot live with that...

Alan LeBendig
--part1_104.18232bd.28028334_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 15:29:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f395T1s29185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:29:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f395Slt29129 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:28:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 22:24:58 -0700 Message-ID: <005601c0c0b5$eaed2ec0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002401c0c05a$52c97d20$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <007601c0c061$ca68cb40$f4a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C2 vs L12C3 (an aside) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 22:21:26 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > Marv wrote: > > (It's better for players to just appeal without saying why, keeping > > their mouths shut until there is a need to rebut AC opinions. > > "Anything you say may be used against you" might be good advice > > by the TD.) > > > > Though this is not your main point, could you elaborate? I thought the > appeal sequence of events was > > 1. Director states facts, laws, and rulings. > 2. Players say what they have to say. > 3. AC adjourns to privately consider what to do. > 4. AC issues its finding. > 5. There is no more discussion. > > Where do players get a chance to rebut AC opinions? I'm afraid I was exaggerating. What I meant was that a player should be careful not to hang himself, and say no more than is absolutely necessary. Loose lips sink ships. There is some discussion back and forth between the players and the AC during 2. When the AC issues its finding, they often come out with new arguments (developed during the deliberations) that neither side is allowed to rebut. That's not due process. After 2. the AC says, "Do you have anything more to say? This is your last chance, as you will not be able to say anything after we render our decision." I would like to reply, "This is also your last chance. I don't want to hear anything new when you give us the decision." 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 Apr 9 15:48:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f395m7S05439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:48:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f395lgt05369 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:47:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt8cg.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.161.144]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA12172 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:47:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000401c0c0b8$d9859660$90a1aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <200103281840.KAA12762@mailhub.irvine.com> <019701c0b8db$88a90220$4ea8aec7@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:25:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks for your answer---I feel honored each time to respond to my post. David Stevenson wrote: > Jerry Fusselman writes > >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. > >> As with all long posts, feel free to hit the delete key.... Maybe I need to understand your position better. Here are four situations. You are the director, and we are using your preferred law which would allow the player to correct to the lowest legal bid in the same denomination regardless of what is conventional. How would you rule? In each case, assume that partner of the insufficient bidder called attention to the irregularity. ------------------------------ 1. 1NT-1D (playing DONT). Would you give an option to accept 1D? If 1D was accepted, would partner be allowed to know that Overcaller had a major too? On the other hand, would it matter if the insufficient overcaller just had diamonds? Would you look at his hand before giving a ruling allowing him to change it to 2D? What if he bids 2D after a long pause for thought? What warnings would you issue to each side? 2. 1S P 3S P 3C Would you allow converting to 4C regardless of anything else? What if this pair played that 4C was always Gerber? 3. 2D X P 1NT It seems they might be playing Lebensohl here. Does your ruling depend on their CC and whether they are an experienced partnership? Would you give opener a right to accept 1NT? If so, what information is authorized? How does the OS disclose their followups in this kind of situation? 4. 1S P 2NT P 2S They play Jacoby 2NT. You would allow correction to 3S without barring partner? You would allow accepting 2S, and if so, what information is authorized? ------------------------------ Do you need to stick around at these tables awaiting other developments? Here is what I am heading with these examples: Is it not likely, in these cases, that the OS understands what is going on better than anybody else? Wouldn't it better just to get these auctions over with as soon as possible to protect the NOs? If anyone is still reading, I see I probably ask to much---this seems like a great deal of work. Sorry! Ruling these under current law seems easier and safer for the NOs---just bar offender's partner and watch out for possible lead restrictions and the need to apply L23. Yes there are UI problems with the current way, but allowing the auction to continue seems to compound those problems. The current high penalty seems to make this happen less often, but I promise to keep an open mind. 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 Apr 9 16:39:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f396ci012697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:38:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f396cat12693 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:38:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt8cg.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.161.144]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA28251; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 02:38:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000e01c0c0bf$f47d1ae0$90a1aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <002401c0c05a$52c97d20$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <007601c0c061$ca68cb40$f4a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> <005601c0c0b5$eaed2ec0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C2 vs L12C3 (an aside) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:40:22 -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 Marv wrote: > > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > > > Marv wrote: > > > (It's better for players to just appeal without saying why, > keeping > > > their mouths shut until there is a need to rebut AC opinions. > > > "Anything you say may be used against you" might be good advice > > > by the TD.) > > > > > > > Though this is not your main point, could you elaborate? I thought > the > > appeal sequence of events was > > > > 1. Director states facts, laws, and rulings. > > 2. Players say what they have to say. > > 3. AC adjourns to privately consider what to do. > > 4. AC issues its finding. > > 5. There is no more discussion. > > > > Where do players get a chance to rebut AC opinions? > > I'm afraid I was exaggerating. What I meant was that a player should > be careful not to hang himself, and say no more than is absolutely > necessary. Loose lips sink ships. > > There is some discussion back and forth between the players and the > AC during 2. My only time in front of an AC, they said nothing at all as I recall. I do remember that the director was the one who asked if I had anything more to say. I said no, and the AC adjourned to deliberate. > > When the AC issues its finding, they often come out with new > arguments (developed during the deliberations) that neither side is > allowed to rebut. That's not due process. Yeah, my experience too. Why can't the committee call us back when it uncovers new considerations that no one had even mentioned during the hearing if everybody is still around? > > After 2. the AC says, "Do you have anything more to say? This is > your last chance, as you will not be able to say anything after we > render our decision." > > I would like to reply, "This is also your last chance. I don't want > to hear anything new when you give us the decision." > Yikes! In the right tone of voice, they find that humorous. I pray I never attempt it. 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 Apr 9 16:42:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f396g9Z12716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:42:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f396g3t12712 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:42:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 23:38:16 -0700 Message-ID: <007c01c0c0c0$28553320$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C0C06D.D9DA3B20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 23:31:55 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > Dealer North > North East South West > 1NT Pass (out of turn) > > TD called. North accepts the POOT and East also Passes. > > So the auction has gone: > North East South West > 1NT Pass (out of turn) > Pass Pass > > There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know if he has a call? > Yes, Law 34, RETENTION OF RIGHT TO CALL. It is now South's turn to bid. If South passes, two more passes will be necessary to end the auction, as the preceding passes are cancelled. The auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. (But there was an irregularity, which may call for TD action later) 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 Apr 9 19:41:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f399e5213222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:40:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f399djt13215 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:39:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-254.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.254]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f399dXn23455 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:39:37 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD02B89.B299CEB@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 11:12:41 +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] Timing of TD call References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@village.uunet.be> <2xws9XARMfz6Ew8h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACEE22B.35DB489D@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > >When a player refuses to call the TD, > > Refusal is action. Not calling is inaction. Two different things. > Yet the result is the same - do you want to start mind-reading ? > >either because he does > >not want to, or because he does not know he has to, he has, > >IMHO, given up his L21B1 right to change his call. > > Where does the *law* says this? > ehm, perhaps in L21B1 - "a player can change". It does not say "the TD shall offer a player the chance to change". If I am playing, and they do this to me, then I change my call. OK, when there is an acting TD, I will call him, but that adds nothing to my right. Now when I don't call the TD, or make no noise whatsoever, and I allow my partner to call, then it has become to late to change. I have given up my right to have it changed. OK, that is not in the Lawbook - but that is what this discussion is all about. If it were in the Book, we would not be having this discussion, would we ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 19:58:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f399eZK13233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:40:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f399e7t13224 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:40:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-254.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.254]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f399e1n23745 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:40:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD02C16.F10AEE7C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 11:15:02 +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] Timing of TD call References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@village.uunet.be> <2xws9XARMfz6Ew8h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACEE22B.35DB489D@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > >If we do not rule it this way, then we are in grave > >difficulty with some of the other cases, David. > > What cases? Aside from that, to interpret a law in a certain way,=20 > because you don't like the side effects if you read it as it's=20 > written is, IMO, to put oneself *above* the law - and I don't think=20 > anyone wants to do that (well, maybe the WBF LC - and most of the=20 > ACBL. :) > Ed, sorry, no it's not. There are two interpretations. One of which leads to a desirable conclusion, one to chaos. I am not putting myself "above" the law if I choose to follow one interpretation. Besides, why am I "above" the law ? Why not the other camp ? Where in the Lawbook does it say that they are 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 Mon Apr 9 21:33:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39BXCB23142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:33:12 +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 f39BX3t23138 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:33:05 +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 NAA03368; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:29:17 +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 NAA00081; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:32:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010409133553.0081ae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:35:53 +0200 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L63 and L69 In-Reply-To: References: <3ACD84ED.16E0BBC9@village.uunet.be> <200104051716.KAA18961@mailhub.irvine.com> <3ACD84ED.16E0BBC9@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:23 6/04/01 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <3ACD84ED.16E0BBC9@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes >>Adam Beneschan wrote: >>> >>> > deal? Does the revoke then become "unestablished" >>> > again? >>> >>> I think it would be more proper to say "disestablished". My question >>> is: if one camp argues that the revoke would not become >>> disestablished, would their position have to be known as >>> antidisestablishmentarianism? >>> >> >>Adam gets the annual BLML award for the best use of a >>Shakespeare quote. >> >>At last we know what this word means ! >> >Herman, you're indulging in floccipaucinihilopilification. AG : you even used the word right ! Well if you like using long words, ask a Hungarian TD how he would treat such a case ? The player : but why did I get this PP ? The TD : because you disobey more and more. The TD's response should be one word, and if I remember well, it should be 45 letters long. Was mentioned in old versions of the Guinness, but I lost my copy. Regards. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 21:37:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39Bbap23215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:37:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39BbMt23210 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:37:23 +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 NAA04371; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:33:32 +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 NAA02831; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:36:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010409134009.00818930@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:40:09 +0200 To: "James Vickers" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: MI from Japan In-Reply-To: <013a01c0c067$4f8d5200$9417883e@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:05 8/04/01 +0100, James Vickers wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> A player makes a successful call which has been blatantly suggested by >>> We determine that without the UI, there was a 50% >>> probability that he would make the same call and a 50% probability that >>> he would have made one of five other calls, with equal probability, >>> each of which would have led to a different result which is worse for >>> Applying the above procedure, we would allow the table result >>> Can that be right? >> >> The call that used UI was _illegal_; we do not >> (Read L12C2: "had the irregularity not >> While there is no such stipulation for the OS, we don't >>consider adjusting to a result that includes the irregularity unless >> For example, if their >>illegal contract was due to go down but made by virtue of irrational >>play by the NOS, we might adjust to "illegal contract down" rather than >> But this is _only_ for the OS; >>the NOS result _must not_ include any vestige of an illegal action.) >> >>Once the illegal call is eliminated, we have the same case as Alain >>gave us: five results, 20% each. > I disagree, Steve. When assigning likelihoods to possible alternatives, >you surely consider how likely they would be absent the irregularity >(L16A) in order to determine whether or not the offender had any >reasonable alternatives. There were no reasonable alternatives to the 50% >call in the case Eric cites (they were all judged to be around 10%), >therefore the call chosen was legal and the table result stands. AG : IBTD. If, berring the UI, doubling is 50% and bidding id 50%, albeit with many possibilities, none of which would be made by more than 20% of the player's peers, we shouldn't allow the double. An example : AQJxxx -- Kx AQ10xx After 1S 2H ...p p I guess about 40-50% would double, the other being spread between 3C, 4C, 3H. The 'suggested' double should not stand. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 21:44:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39BhoA23257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:43:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39Bhht23253 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:43:44 +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 NAA05926; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:39:58 +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 NAA07825; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:43:15 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010409134634.0081ecb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:46:34 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI from Japan Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200104061553.IAA08557@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 08:53 6/04/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >I suppose that if the table result for NS were +50, and EW had >committed an infraction, and without the infraction the possible >scores for NS would be +50, +100, +200, +620, +650, each with about >20% probability, then I'd figure there was a 40% probability (and >therefore "likely") that NS would score at least +620, so it would be >wrong to award them less than that. So I'd probably give NS +620 (and >EW -650). AG : even if it is not what the Laws explicitly say, it surely is in the spirit of the distinction in L12C2. I would gladly countersign your decision on that one. Except that if I were to follow the custom of most ACBL >directors, I suppose I'd throw up my hands, award A+/A-, and go get >some more coffee. AG : is the crisis really so deep in ACBL ? Law 12A speaks of situations where the deal would not, in any case, be playable, not of difficult cases. Somebody ought to say them. Ah yes, you already tried :-\ Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 22:13:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39C7pD23631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:07:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39C6Zt23611 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:06:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-60.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.60]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f39C6Vn01955 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:06:31 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD199C3.4D8876AD@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:15:15 +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] claiming a revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > Zelig of RGB posted this query. I thought it might provoke some > interesting discussion. > > roger pewick > > Contarct 4S > Declarer needs the last three tricks, EW have only red cards left. > > N > - > Axx > - > - > > S > x > Q > - > x > > West leads a H and declarer, thinking it was a D, claims, saying he'll > ruff the D, cash his C and play H to the A. Upon realizing a H was > led > and not a D, he says he'll win the A, ruff a H and cash his C. > > The director was called and ruled the claim couldn't be changed, the > original claim constituted a revoke and awarded EW two tricks. > > Was this correct? > I believe not. I believe declarer claimed "two high tricks and a ruff". 3 tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 22:21:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39CLRW23660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:21:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f39CLHt23656 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:21:18 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA14289; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:07:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Apr 09 14:04:38 2001 +0200 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 <01K275KUZ156005B6T@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 14:04:06 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2JAL0BA6>; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 14:03:36 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 14:03:55 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: "'Jac Fuchs'" , "Fearghal O'Boyle" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7FD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Fearghal O'Boyle asked: > > > > > > Dealer North > > North East South West > > 1NT Pass (out of turn) > > > > TD called. North accepts the POOT and East also Passes. > > > > So the auction has gone: > > North East South West > > 1NT Pass (out of turn) > > Pass Pass > > > > There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know if > he has a call? > > I believe I see what your problem is: South objects and is the player > who missed his turn, but id we cancel all subsequent passes it should > not be his turn to call, but it should be Easts ... > Yet I would rule this in the spirit of L34: I would cancel the three > passes and tell East he is to bid over 1NT - this, I trust, is the > ruling the Lawmakers intended us to make. > I would welcome an improvement in the text of L34 that would make L34 > cover this case, of course. > > Jac > > > > > > Best regards, > > Fearghal. > > there we go again. incomplete laws, with the request to do better. L 34 does cover this case, for any TD who gets to deal with it. Finding the law itself is the most difficult part of it, watching them trying to solve it. If you think to have covered this case try the following: N E S W pass pass pass pass and read carefully that L34 speaks about 'when ONE of those passes was out of rotation'. To David Burn: is this a when with one 'n' and then the proof foor whenn's ? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 22:28:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39C7uF23632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:07:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39C6Zt23610 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:06:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-60.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.60]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f39C6Sn01919 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:06:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD1994D.184F1263@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:13:17 +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] What is the meaning of equity in L84D and L12C3? References: <023901c0bfe1$97eccfc0$90a5aec7@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: > > Can anyone give a careful definition of "equity" as it applies to L84D and > L12C3? > I do not think that "equity" can be defined. "do equity" is what we need to define. This may well include something like "restore to the equity position". So we need to define "equity position". I believe the "equity position" is : The expected outcome from a deal, starting at a particular point in the deal (usually the one just before the infraction) and taking into account all happenings before this point, and perhaps also some happenings after that point, if they are unrelated to the infraction. What I mean with that last bit is that at aparticular point the expectation may be that declarer will make 4 or 5 more tricks, depending on a finesse. If the finesse is influenced by the infraction, then the equity position would be "50% of one result, 50% of the other". But if the finesse is unrelated to the infraction, then we might rule 100% of 4 or 5 tricks, depending on which way it was taken. In any case, I think a definition of an equity position includes the words "expected outcome". > (If my question is too vague, I am looking for a technical definition,if > possible. I want a careful definition that a mathematician, economist, or > philosopher could understand and be satisfied with. If it takes several > sentences, that is fine! If there is out there somewhere else on the web, or > in some previous BLML post, that is fine too. I feel more and more confused > about equity.) > > 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/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 22:43:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39C7l423630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:07:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39C6bt23613 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:06:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-60.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.60]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f39C6Xn02009 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:06:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD19B82.CF7FCCB8@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:22:42 +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] L12C2 vs L12C3 References: <002401c0c05a$52c97d20$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have not read this in very great detail, but I would like to comment on one part of Marv's question. "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Let's look at an Anaheim NABC appeal (No. 39) and see whether it > should be easier to apply L12C2 or L12C3: > > to Alert. All thought that with the correct information, even with > South in the dark about the meaning of North's 2D, there was very > little if any chance that the final contract would have been > anything other than 4S or 5S, making six. The player who was most > positive about 5D doubled becoming the final contract only gave it > a 10-20% chance; the one who believed it least likely termed its > likelihood "beyond the wit of man." > So L12C2 : 4S+2 and L12C3 : 90% 4S+2 + 10% 5DD-1 I really don't see why this case is any more difficult with L12C3 enabled. > The Panel decided that MI existed (L75) and that a different auction > would have ensued without it. Although North's 4S bid was considered > to be an illegal choice (L16A: a player "may not choose from among > logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested > over another by the extraneous information"), by the standards of > L12C2, the Panel believed that a score adjustment was not indicated. > Therefore, the table result stands. > > Well, there you have an L12C2-based decision, arrived at with much > difficulty. In defense of the TD Panel, they are required to give > much weight to the player consultants' opinions. > > What would have happened with L12C3 in effect? Just imagine the > extended calculations to arrive at percentage chances for 4S, 5S, > 5D doubled, 6D doubled, 6S, 7D doubled, or whatever. Much more > difficult. What makes you think that 7DD needs to be considered ? The AC did not consider it in their L12C2 determination, did they ? > Not to mention that such calculations are illusory, > based on little more than crystal-ball guesses about what players > might actually have done. Ron Gerard gave a scenario in which N/S > ended in 5D (North cue bidding, thinking spades are agreed) down 8! > > If I were a TD, I would look at those 10 diamonds E-W, and in 10 > seconds give both sides a 5D doubled result +100/-100, applying > L12C2. WTP? > Well, apart from the fact that the AC decided completely differently? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 9 22:58:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39C7kM23629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:07:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39C6Zt23609 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:06:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-60.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.60]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f39C6Fn01822 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:06:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD196BD.C533C86F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:02:21 +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] Timing of TD call References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@village.uunet.be> <2xws9XARMfz6Ew8h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACEE22B.35DB489D@village.uunet.be> <001301c0c015$be032fe0$a5d77ad5@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: > > >DB seems to be saying that he wants to give redress because > you cannot expect players to know that they have a right > under L21B1. > > Not "because". I want to give redress because players have a right not > to be damaged by misinformation given them by the opponents. Whether or > not they know Law 21 and Law 9 does not affect that basic right. > OK, sorry for the use of "because". If I had written "does not want to deny redress" the because would ahve been all right. > >In that case, David (B), would you give redress to DWS or > HDW when, in full knowledge that we have the L21B1 right, we > remark an irregularity in alerting but do not draw attention > to it, and don't call the TD, and don't get our L21B1 right > offered, and then claim damage because we would have bid > differently ? > > It would depend only on whether or not I believe your claim that you > would have bid differently. But of course you are going to believe that. This is a hypothetical. If you do not believe it - the case is moot. Surely you can imagine cases where you would believe us. Let's assume that this is one of them. Are you giving redress ? > You and DWS seem to me to consider that > because a player is able to claim that he would have bid differently > after the event, instead of actually having to bid differently at the > table, that player enjoys some unfair advantage. He does not. Although > it is true that after the event, a player may be better placed to decide > on what alternative actions might have worked better for his side, and > then to claim that he would have taken one of those actions, this claim > still has to be believed by the director or committee. > But quite often it will be believed. And even if it is only half believed, and the TD/AC award a 12C3 weighted score, the player does better by not calling the TD. Consider this: My RHO bids 3Di. If this is natural, I cannot double this, since that would be take-out. If it is conventional, I can double to ask for a diamond lead. Suppose even that this double is not clear-cut, say a 50/50 chance of me doing so. If I double, partner will lead diamonds. If I pass, partner will lead hearts (since I did not double, after all). Now suppose I get a late alert, after I've passed. I decide not to call the TD at this time, and since you are the TD, I can safely do so. Partner leads hearts, and this turns out to be the bad lead. I score 25%. If you apply L12C2, you will award me a diamond lead and a score of 75%. If you apply L12C3, you will give me 50/50 of both, resulting in 50%. But if the best lead is hearts, I get 75% straight away. Net result for me : 75% under L12C2, 62.5% under L12C3. Yet if I call the TD, you will ask me to choose my final bid. I will either pass or double, partner will lead right or wrong, and my expected outcome is 50%. So I do better by not drawing attention to the infraction. > >Maybe it is the case, David, that you would indeed still > allow redress. > That means that you are giving us two an advantage, simply > because we are well versed in the laws. > > What advantage? If you can prove your claim of damage, then you are > entitled to redress; if you cannot, then you are not. You seem to me to > consider that redress will automatically be given to a player who claims > damage after the event, and that therefore it is in the player's > interests to wait until after the event and not to follow L9 procedure. > It is not, for redress will not automatically be given; damage has to be > proved. > But the laws provide for a mechanism by which the damage can be avoided. After all, the infraction is relatively small : a late alert. We want to encourage people to give correct information. We do not want to discourage playing complicated systems. So sometimes a player will need more than 3 seconds to realise the exact meaning of a call. By which time an opponent will have called. We want to encourage him to correct his explanation, and the only price he should be paying for his late alert is the opportunity he has given his opponents to exchange a small amount of (normally un- now:) authorized information. > >Or maybe you would refuse to DWS and HDW what you would > allow to some poor slob who never RTFLB; then you are > putting us at a disadvantage, simply because we have at some > time RTFLB. > > What disadvantage? If the poor slob can prove his claim of damage, then > he is entitled to redress; if he cannot, then he is not. > But the problem is not whether or not anyone can prove damage. I am assuming that he can - the problem is that you are giving NOs an extra bonus that the laws have tried to eliminate by allowing a change of call. > The difficulty I have is that I believe that cases arising from possible > damage due to misinformation should be handled uniformly, regardless of > when the misinformation came to light. Suppose the misinformation does > not come to light until the end of the play: the non-offending side then > has the right to claim damage on the basis of what they might have done > if correctly informed. If they can prove their claim, they are entitled > to redress. Now, I do not see that this right should be lost because the > misinformation comes to light at an earlier point. Law 21B says that a > player may change his call if it was made on the basis of > misinformation - it does not say that he must exercise the option to do > so as soon as the misinformation comes to light, or forever lose the > right to claim redress for damage. > No indeed - the Law does not say this. I am trying to tell you all that it should, and I believe that it is implied. > A tendency appears to have arisen to treat the non-offending side - the > side that has been misinformed - as the villains of the piece, while > treating the offenders - the side that has done the misinforming - as > poor victims of unscrupulous bridge lawyers who deliberately delay > summoning the director in order to procure some unfair advantage for > themselves. This is simply not the case. > You are painting a black picture. The only offence the OS are guilty of is not remembering their system within a delay of 0.1 seconds. I do not believe that using 5 seconds to remember your system is a grave offence, and the Lawmakers have also said so - because they introduced a method of dealing with it, at a low cost to OS. > >I do not believe either position is tenable. > > I believe that one of them is. There are no prizes for guessing which > one. > > >Which leaves just the alternative of denying redress to us > and the poor slob equally. > > What I want to do is to treat you and the poor slob equally: I will give > you redress if you can prove damage; if you cannot, I will not. What I > refuse to do is conduct a dialogue like this: > What you fail to see, David, is that if both of us can prove damage, the poor slob will not get redress - he will have called you, as he should under L9. You will them ask him to make a final choice. DWS and myself, in our "unethical" mode, will not call you, and you will give us redress. > "So, Mr Slob, you say that if you had been correctly informed, you would > have done X?" > "Yes." > "Then why, when the misinformation came to light, did you not call the > director and ask if you could change your call to X? He would have let > you do that under Law 21B." > "Because I thought it was too late to do anything about it once I had > made my call." > "Tough luck. You should have known better. Next case." > > In fairness, I should say that the alternative is a dialogue like this: > > "So, Mr de Wael, you say that if you had been correctly informed, you > would have done X?" > "Yes." > "Then why, when the misinformation came to light, did you not call the > director and ask if you could change your call to X? As you very well > know, he would have let you do that under Law 21B." > "Because I chose not to draw attention to the irregularity and summon > the director under Law 9, which says only that I may do this, not that I > must." > "Then, although I consider you to be a reprehensible toad with no > redeeming features whatever, I suppose I must examine your claim that > you would indeed have done X." > > But at least, in this scenario, both you and the poor slob will have > your claim for damage heard, and will be treated equally under the laws. No we won't, because the poor slob will have been tought time and time again that he should call the TD. So the first dialogue should not be happening - or if it does, it would be correct. DWS and HDW would be able to have the second dialogue, so we are at an advantage. Now if your reply to HDWS (how's that for a new acronym, David ?) would be : "Tough luck. You should have known better. Next case." then, and only then (thenn), the poor slob and HDWS are treated equally. > In the alternative scenario, this will not happen. > > >What it boils down to is whether or not L21B1 ought to be in > the list that some-one posted of Laws that the players ought > to know. > > Not really. What it boils down to is that, if you want your position to > be adopted, the laws need to be changed to make a call for the director > mandatory should misinformation come to light while it is still possible > for a call based on that misinformation to be changed. > No, I don't believe that. I believe that we can interpret L21B1 to mean that if one does nothing to ask for a change of call - one has forfeited his right to do so. I even believe that we need to interpret L21B1 always like that. Where in the Laws does it say that you have forfeited your right to redress after the TD has told you about your L21B1 right and you have not taken it ? > >I realize that players are not expected to know the rules, > and I won't rule against them when they don't, but I won't > rule for them either. > Not when I'd rule against someone who did know the law in > question. > > I, on the other hand, would rule equally for or against players whether > or not they knew the laws. > So would I, as my paragraph above amply shows. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 00:28:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39ES4r28077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:28:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39ERkt27995 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:27:47 +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 14mcdl-000Hwo-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:27:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:04:13 +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> <01d401c0bfda$00aeb800$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> <005c01c0c09b$8a665500$f4a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <005c01c0c09b$8a665500$f4a8aec7@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 >Thanks for your answer, David. Well, maybe everyone else is clear on this, >and if so I apologize, but four questions remain. (If this has been >explained before, say in August of 1999, let me know and I can look it up.) > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> >> I do not give rulings at my table. > >I understand this completely. Of course not. > >1. Am I safe to assume that had you been the director, and if you had been >called to the table, and if it was not a club game, then you would have >ruled that the insufficient transfer was convention, and barred the notrump >opener from the auction? Yes, if the insufficient bid was not accepted by the next player. >2. If is was at club game, would you still have ruled the same way? Yes. The Law book is the same. >> I do not call the TD to my table >> at a club. >3. Why not? At a club, there are many times I would rather not call the >director, and if I do not have to anymore, I would be delighted. Under >L9B1a, it seems to me that the director must be called when there is a >insufficient bid. No? Do you treat your insufficient bids differently from >your opponent's? Of course. OK, perhaps I do call the Director occasionally at a club, now you mention it, but only for my side's defalcations. >4. Would not call the director either, even if required under L75D? How >about a revoke? No director call to your table in this case either? True. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 00:28:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39ES4n28070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:28:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39ERkt27994 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:27:47 +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 14mcdl-000Hwp-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:27:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:15:25 +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> <019701c0b8db$88a90220$4ea8aec7@ix.netcom.com> <000401c0c0b8$d9859660$90a1aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <000401c0c0b8$d9859660$90a1aec7@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 > >Thanks for your answer---I feel honored each time to respond to my post. > >David Stevenson wrote: >> Jerry Fusselman writes >> >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. >> >> > > >As with all long posts, feel free to hit the delete key.... > >Maybe I need to understand your position better. Here are four situations. >You are the director, and we are using your preferred law which would allow >the player to correct to the lowest legal bid in the same denomination >regardless of what is conventional. How would you rule? In each case, assume >that partner of the insufficient bidder called attention to the >irregularity. > >------------------------------ > >1. >1NT-1D (playing DONT). Would you give an option to accept 1D? Yes. > If 1D was >accepted, would partner be allowed to know that Overcaller had a major too? Certainly not. >On the other hand, would it matter if the insufficient overcaller just had >diamonds? No, unless there is any suggestion of deliberate action or UI. But there are other Laws to deal with that. > Would you look at his hand before giving a ruling allowing him to >change it to 2D? No, Directors do not look at player's hands. > What if he bids 2D after a long pause for thought? Establish the UI. > What >warnings would you issue to each side? Warn the insufficient bid side to avoid UI. >2. >1S P 3S P >3C >Would you allow converting to 4C regardless of anything else? What if this >pair played that 4C was always Gerber? Allow them to convert to 4C. >3. >2D X P 1NT >It seems they might be playing Lebensohl here. Does your ruling depend on >their CC and whether they are an experienced partnership? No. > Would you give >opener a right to accept 1NT? Yes. > If so, what information is authorized? That the auction has been what it has been. > How >does the OS disclose their followups in this kind of situation? Normally, by telling their oppos of their agreements. >4. >1S P 2NT P >2S >They play Jacoby 2NT. You would allow correction to 3S without barring >partner? Yes. >You would allow accepting 2S, and if so, what information is >authorized? Yes. The auction is authorised. >Do you need to stick around at these tables awaiting other developments? No. >Here is what I am heading with these examples: > >Is it not likely, in these cases, that the OS understands what is going on >better than anybody else? Wouldn't it better just to get these auctions over >with as soon as possible to protect the NOs? No. That seems a very strange idea to me. Do you want to give Ave+/Ave- and cancel the board whenever someone leads out of turn? As for the OS understanding, my Law will make understanding easier for both sides because it is a simpler Law. >If anyone is still reading, I see I probably ask to much---this seems like a >great deal of work. Sorry! Ruling these under current law seems easier and >safer for the NOs---just bar offender's partner and watch out for possible >lead restrictions and the need to apply L23. It is certainly not easier to rule under the current Laws - it is far more difficult. Currently you have to decide whether an insufficient bid is conventional. With my suggested Law you need no investigation, which is always likely to give UI. The current Law leads to far more work. >Yes there are UI problems with the current way, but allowing the auction to >continue seems to compound those problems. The current high penalty seems to >make this happen less often, but I promise to keep an open mind. Well, you must open it to the fact that what I am suggesting is simpler, and thus will be simpler for the players. Over last weekend one of the players politely suggested that I had got a book ruling wrong, because I had ruled differently from one of my junior TDs had the previous day. Of course, it was an insufficient bid, and this one was conventional. She could not understand why it made a difference - and it will be far easier to explain the law to a player if 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 Tue Apr 10 01:06:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39F6We07280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:06:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39F6Mt07275 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:06:23 +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 f39F6HC29314 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:06:18 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f39F6HF28156 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:06:17 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:06:16 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 QAA02710 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:06:15 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA27435 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:06:15 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:06:15 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200104091506.QAA27435@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson, in response to > Jerry Fusselman: > >1. 1NT-1D (playing DONT). Would you give an option to accept 1D? > > Yes. > > > If 1D was accepted, would partner be allowed to know that > > Overcaller had a major too? > > Certainly not. Under what law? Why can't partner guess that overcaller intended 2D if there is no UI. > > On the other hand, would it matter if the insufficient overcaller > > just had diamonds? > > No, unless there is any suggestion of deliberate action or UI. But > there are other Laws to deal with that. > > > Would you look at his hand before giving a ruling allowing him to > > change it to 2D? > > No, Directors do not look at player's hands. > > > What if he bids 2D after a long pause for thought? > > Establish the UI. > > > What warnings would you issue to each side? > > Warn the insufficient bid side to avoid UI. Explaining that the long pause is UI, but the fact that partner originally bid 1D is not UI (L27B1a "Law16C2 does not apply"). Also ask to be recalled, in case L27B1b applies. > > 2. > > 1S P 3S P > > 3C > > Would you allow converting to 4C regardless of anything else? > > What if this pair played that 4C was always Gerber? > > Allow them to convert to 4C. So 4C is incontrovertibly not conventional, even though it might be Gerber? > > 3. > > 2D X P 1NT > > It seems they might be playing Lebensohl here. Does your ruling depend on > > their CC and whether they are an experienced partnership? > > No. > > > Would you give opener a right to accept 1NT? > > Yes. > > > If so, what information is authorized? > > That the auction has been what it has been. > > > How does the OS disclose their followups in this kind of situation? > > Normally, by telling their oppos of their agreements. > > > 4. > > 1S P 2NT P > > 2S > > They play Jacoby 2NT. You would allow correction to 3S without barring > > partner? > > Yes. So 3S is incontrovertibly not conventional, even though it is a response to an artificial raise and may be conventional (depending on their agreements)? > > You would allow accepting 2S, and if so, what information is authorized? > > Yes. The auction is authorised. > > > Do you need to stick around at these tables awaiting other developments? > > No. > -- 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 Apr 10 01:51:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39FpIb07374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:51:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39Fp9t07370 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:51:09 +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 14mdwW-000MmM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:51:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:44:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid References: <200103281840.KAA12762@mailhub.irvine.com> <01d401c0bfda$00aeb800$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> <005c01c0c09b$8a665500$f4a8aec7@ix.netcom.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 >Jerry Fusselman writes >>Thanks for your answer, David. Well, maybe everyone else is clear on this, >>and if so I apologize, but four questions remain. (If this has been >>explained before, say in August of 1999, let me know and I can look it up.) >> >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >>> >>> I do not give rulings at my table. >> >>I understand this completely. Of course not. >> >>1. Am I safe to assume that had you been the director, and if you had been >>called to the table, and if it was not a club game, then you would have >>ruled that the insufficient transfer was convention, and barred the notrump >>opener from the auction? > Broadly when I'm playing club bridge, I sometimes call the TD for mechanical rulings, but I don't bother with UI and MI. I can use the hesitations and MI better than the opponents so it's to my advantage. If the players are interested in the Law they'll ask me and I'll tell them the Law and leave it up to them. For my own infractions I choose always to pay the proper penalty - it would be wrong to do otherwise, and the players understand this. cheers john > Yes, if the insufficient bid was not accepted by the next player. > >>2. If is was at club game, would you still have ruled the same way? > > Yes. The Law book is the same. > >>> I do not call the TD to my table >>> at a club. > >>3. Why not? At a club, there are many times I would rather not call the >>director, and if I do not have to anymore, I would be delighted. Under >>L9B1a, it seems to me that the director must be called when there is a >>insufficient bid. No? Do you treat your insufficient bids differently from >>your opponent's? > > Of course. OK, perhaps I do call the Director occasionally at a club, >now you mention it, but only for my side's defalcations. > >>4. Would not call the director either, even if required under L75D? How >>about a revoke? No director call to your table in this case either? > > True. > -- 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 Apr 10 01:53:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39FrB807387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:53:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39Fr3t07383 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:53:05 +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 LAA12174 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:52:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA021701574; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:52:54 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:52:53 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] Law 25B1 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, 9 Apr 2001 11:52:53 -0400" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLMLrs, I would like your help to make sure I correctly read Law 25B1. In cases above, let suppose Law 25A no more applies. N changes his 1S call to 2D and E Pass (before or after the attention was drawn to the irregularity). 1) N E 1S changed to 2D (TD!) P (after TD gives his ruling) First sentence of LB1 clearly applies (The substituted call may be accepted by offender's LHO). No more penalty. 2) N E 1S changed to 2D (TD!) P (before TD comes to table) The attention was drawn to the irregularity but E Pass before waiting for the TD ruling. Law 9B2 applies. Must the Pass now stand, making the 2D de facto accepted without penalty? Does the Pass be cancelled.... and then ??? 3) N E 1S changed to 2D P (before TD is called) E called before attention was drawn to the irregularity. TD must try to know if LHO intended to call on 1S or 2D. If E intended to P on 1S, 2D stands but E may now change his call (Law 16C2 applies). Second sentence of LB1. If E intended to P on 2D, I think the P must stand (?). What about Law 16C2 in this case? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 01:59:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39FxLD07407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:59:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39FxDt07402 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:59:14 +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 14me4K-000MYB-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:59:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:52:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C2 vs L12C3 (an aside) References: <002401c0c05a$52c97d20$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <007601c0c061$ca68cb40$f4a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> <005601c0c0b5$eaed2ec0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005601c0c0b5$eaed2ec0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <005601c0c0b5$eaed2ec0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Jerry Fusselman" > >> Marv wrote: >> > (It's better for players to just appeal without saying why, >keeping >> > their mouths shut until there is a need to rebut AC opinions. >> > "Anything you say may be used against you" might be good advice >> > by the TD.) >> > If you appeal to me without giving a reason I'll tell you I won't form an AC. You must have *some* reason for appealing. 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 Apr 10 03:22:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39HM8Z18432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:22:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com (imo-m05.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.8]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f39HM2t18428 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:22:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from AlanLeBendig@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id p.c0.127039aa (4073) for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:21:42 -0400 (EDT) From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:21:41 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c0.127039aa.280349a5_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_c0.127039aa.280349a5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/9/01 5:28:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > West leads a H and declarer, thinking it was a D, claims, saying he'll > > ruff the D, Unfortunately, his actual statement was only that he was ruffing. If he had said that he was ruffing the D, there would be no problem. He couldn't ruff a card that wasn't there. But if he thought it was a D, he could certainly ruff it. Nothing in the Laws would prevent that. > cash his C and play H to the A. Upon realizing a H was > > led > > and not a D, he says he'll win the A, ruff a H and cash his C. > > > > The director was called and ruled the claim couldn't be changed, the > > original claim constituted a revoke and awarded EW two tricks. > > > > Was this correct? > > > > I believe not. > I believe declarer claimed "two high tricks and a ruff". > 3 tricks. > Had declarer claimed in that fashion, there would be nothing to discuss and noone would argue the case in any way. Had declarer merely placed his cards on the table, there would be no argument whatsoever. However, he did make it clear he was going to ruff this card. Unlucky... Alan --part1_c0.127039aa.280349a5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/9/01 5:28:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
hermandw@village.uunet.be writes:


> West leads a H and declarer, thinking it was a D, claims, saying he'll
> ruff the D,


Unfortunately, his actual statement was only that he was ruffing.  If he had
said that he was ruffing the D, there would be no problem.  He couldn't ruff
a card that wasn't there.  But if he thought it was a D, he could certainly
ruff it.  Nothing in the Laws would prevent that.

 > cash his C and play H to the A. Upon realizing a  H was
> led
> and not a D, he says he'll win the A, ruff a H and cash his C.
>
> The director was called and ruled the claim couldn't be changed, the
> original claim constituted a revoke and awarded EW two tricks.
>
> Was this correct?
>

I believe not.
I believe declarer claimed "two high tricks and a ruff".
3 tricks.

Had declarer claimed in that fashion, there would be nothing to discuss and
noone would argue the case in any way.  Had declarer merely placed his cards
on the table, there would be no argument whatsoever.  However, he did make it
clear he was going to ruff this card.  Unlucky...

Alan
--part1_c0.127039aa.280349a5_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 04:12:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39I9mT18497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:09:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe3.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.107]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f39I9ct18488 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:09:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:09:18 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.166.4] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:05:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2001 18:09:18.0609 (UTC) FILETIME=[31DD8810:01C0C120] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Pewick To: blml Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 11:34 AM Subject: [BLML] claiming a revoke | Zelig of RGB posted this query. I thought it might provoke some | interesting discussion. | | roger pewick | | | Contarct 4S | Declarer needs the last three tricks, EW have only red cards left. | | N | - | Axx | - | - | | S | x | Q | - | x | | West leads a H and declarer, thinking it was a D, claims, saying he'll | ruff the D, cash his C and play H to the A. Upon realizing a H was | led | and not a D, he says he'll win the A, ruff a H and cash his C. | | The director was called and ruled the claim couldn't be changed, the | original claim constituted a revoke and awarded EW two tricks. | | Was this correct? When I started the thread I was hoping it was as obvious to you as to me that the case established that the director did not ascertain all the facts needed. I did not know at the time whether they would become available so I did not wait to get the ball rolling. With that in mind... Of primary importance is whether ".saying he'll ruff the D, cash his C and play H to the A. Upon realizing a H was led and not a D, he says he'll win the A, ruff a H and cash his C." means - ruff the D, cash his C and play H to the A. or means - he'll win the A, ruff a H and cash his C." If the former [as by the two statements were not sufficiently contiguous], the revoke occurred at T11 prior to the tricks claimed. The second statement is embellishment of the claim which is not to be accepted; and as the claim has established the revoke, it is too late to correct it. The claim established the revoke and subjects it to L64A. If the latter, there is no revoke at T11 and the claim of T12 and T13 is valid. What is clear is that from the information it is not clear. What was the timing of the first statement and the second? This suggested that I ask in words to the effect, ' what actually happened?' This prompted the originator to clarify the matter. To summarize, the realization of the heart lead instead of the diamond was immediate and the correction was immediate. Surely, in this case the statements were contiguous and to the effect that the initial assertion was nullified [claim of 2 tricks affirmed]. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 04:12:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39I9mp18496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:09:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe63.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.198]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f39I9ct18487 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:09:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:09:16 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.166.4] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <01C0C06D.D9DA3B20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:38:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2001 18:09:16.0302 (UTC) FILETIME=[307D82E0:01C0C120] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Fearghal O'Boyle To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 2:52 PM Subject: [BLML] Law 34 or not? | | Dealer North | North East South West | 1NT Pass (out of turn) | | TD called. North accepts the POOT and East also Passes. | | So the auction has gone: | North East South West | 1NT Pass (out of turn) | Pass Pass | | There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know if he has a call? | | Best regards, | Fearghal. After reading L34 a few times I noticed several words set apart from the relevant first sentence by a comma- " ., thereby depriving a player of his right to call at that turn." If that phrase were outright eliminated the outcome surely would give unilateral right to the player to call. Therefore that language suggests that to restore the player's turn the cause of depriving the player at that turn needs to be the POOT. In reviewing the case, the director was summoned and the missed player's partner was given the opportunity to not accept the POOT. Had he done so his partner would have had the opportunity to call at that turn. As he accepted the POOT it was not the POOT that caused the player to skip his turn but the election to not penalize the POOT. This is a clear path to ruling that the auction ended at the third pass. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 04:18:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39IIQl18531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:18:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f52.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f39IIKt18527 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:18:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:18:13 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 18:18:13 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:18:13 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2001 18:18:13.0682 (UTC) FILETIME=[70CB3120:01C0C121] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com >In a message dated 4/9/01 5:28:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, >hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > West leads a H and declarer, thinking it was a D, claims, saying he'll > > > ruff the D, > >Unfortunately, his actual statement was only that he was ruffing. If he >had >said that he was ruffing the D, there would be no problem. He couldn't >ruff >a card that wasn't there. But if he thought it was a D, he could certainly >ruff it. Nothing in the Laws would prevent that. You're making an argument against providing a claim statement. You should be working dutiously to fix the laws so the situation does not exist. > > I believe not. > > I believe declarer claimed "two high tricks and a ruff". > > 3 tricks. > > >Had declarer claimed in that fashion, there would be nothing to discuss and >noone would argue the case in any way. Had declarer merely placed his >cards >on the table, there would be no argument whatsoever. However, he did make >it >clear he was going to ruff this card. Unlucky... Isn't one of the benefits to claiming that you limit your liability from trivial or mechanical mistakes? There's nothing in the laws that say you can't play the same card twice. Holding: -- Ax -- xxx I could claim 5 heart tricks. Surely you will dismiss that faulty claim statement and rule otherwise. There's nothing in the laws that say exactly what to do with the claim statement other than to hear it and consider it in your ruling. This is the realm of common law. Practice I've seen dismisses illegal lines of play. Perhaps the footnote should read: "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, 71, ''normal'' includes ... and excludes illegal lines of play." Another angle. L70D doesn't allow us to dismiss the new claim statement (declarer did make two of them, apparently) as it is embraced by the original. Trump and two high cards are the tricks. The heart duck to the queen, conceivably rational if you know people that take finesses to establish unreachable winners, is the only possible alternative normal line of play that is less successful. But if you want to say he revoked, you'll have to tell us how to resolve the difference between 68D (play ceases) and 61A ("failure to lead or play ... constitutes a revoke"). If the card had been played, which it hasn't and won't be, 63A3 would establish, but not create, the revoke. -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 Apr 10 04:28:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39ISF618547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:28:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f39IS9t18542 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:28:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt092n3b.san.rr.com [204.210.48.59]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f39ITCV27909 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003801c0c122$cb33eac0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002401c0c05a$52c97d20$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <007601c0c061$ca68cb40$f4a8aec7@ix.netcom.com> <005601c0c0b5$eaed2ec0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L12C2 vs L12C3 (an aside) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:22:57 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Marvin L. French writes > > > >From: "Jerry Fusselman" > > > >> Marv wrote: > >> > (It's better for players to just appeal without saying why, > >keeping > >> > their mouths shut until there is a need to rebut AC opinions. > >> > "Anything you say may be used against you" might be good advice > >> > by the TD.) > >> > > If you appeal to me without giving a reason I'll tell you I won't form > an AC. You must have *some* reason for appealing. cheers john > As I later wrote, I was exaggerating. I would start with "I don't agree with the ruling, I think it's unfair and I would like to appeal it." "What do you find unfair about it?" "I believe an AC would have a different opinion than yours." That's a reason. I don't see where L92 says the TD can now deny me an AC. The point I was trying to make is that players should not offer detailed opinions about who might have done what, as a thoughtless statement might jeopardize their case. We had an NABC case some time ago in which a player made a negative double showing spades, partner hesitated and bid spades, and then the doubler put the contract in 4H, holding three hearts and four spades. When the TD was called, he stupidly blurted out the wrong thing: "I thought a 5-3 contract would play better than a 4-4." The TD ruled a 4S contract, and the AC upheld that. If the doubler had said, "I had already shown four spades, so I could leave it up to partner," he might well have won his case. You have to be careful what you say to the TD, because you will be held to that later. The less said the better. 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 Apr 10 04:42:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39IgTW18568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:42:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39IgNt18564 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:42:24 +1000 (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 14mgcD-000G5W-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:42:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:19:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a 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 >An impossible claim statement is dismissed, not followed. The revoke cannot >be established because it's an illegal line of play. Perhaps you could explain this to me? Revokes are often established even though the revoke is an illegal line of 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 Apr 10 04:59:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39Ixh518598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:59:43 +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 f39Ixat18594 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:59:37 +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 LAA10633; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:59:31 -0700 Message-Id: <200104091859.LAA10633@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:18:13 PDT." Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:59:31 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I don't know the answer to this. But my first impression is that any question that can generate both this comment: > Since when is it "illegal" to revoke? and this one: > There's nothing in the laws that say you can't play the same card > twice. must have come from the other side of the Looking-Glass, or perhaps from the Twilight Zone [insert theme music 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 Tue Apr 10 05:29:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39JT4N20047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 05:29:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f102.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f39JSwt20012 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 05:28:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:28:50 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 19:28:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:28:49 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2001 19:28:50.0040 (UTC) FILETIME=[4DDC1F80:01C0C12B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Todd Zimnoch writes > >An impossible claim statement is dismissed, not followed. The revoke >cannot > >be established because it's an illegal line of play. > > Perhaps you could explain this to me? Revokes are often established >even though the revoke is an illegal line of play. A claim can establish a revoke (63A3), but a revoke requires a played card (61A). You do not allow illegal lines of play as a matter of ruling on claims. Or at least shouldn't. Otherwise I might claim to lead from dummy when there's no actual transportation there. No card has been played, so it's not a lead out of turn. Would you allow declarer to do that when it loses a trick in play, dummy contests the claim, but opponents would be glad to accept the lead out of turn if it had actually been played out? -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 Apr 10 05:44:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39JiXI25534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 05:44:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39JiMt25470 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 05:44:24 +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 MAA11687; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:44:11 -0700 Message-Id: <200104091944.MAA11687@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:18:13 PDT." Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:44:10 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Isn't one of the benefits to claiming that you limit your liability > from trivial or mechanical mistakes? Not from trivial or mechanical mistakes in the claim statement itself. > Practice I've seen dismisses illegal lines of play. > Perhaps the footnote should read: "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, 71, > ''normal'' includes ... and excludes illegal lines of play." Certainly, when we're adjudicating a faulty claim by imagining how the play might have gone if it had continued, we don't consider lines of play in which someone revokes or does something else illegal (such as playing two cards to a trick). But I think the case where someone, in effect, explicitly states that they're going to revoke is a whole different kettle of fish. Or, to use Alain's wonderful term that isn't in our Webster's dictionaries but should be, it's allochromohippic. > But if you want to say he revoked, you'll have to tell us how to resolve the > difference between 68D (play ceases) and 61A ("failure to lead or play ... > constitutes a revoke"). If the card had been played, which it hasn't and > won't be, 63A3 would establish, but not create, the revoke. I don't think anyone else on this list is saying "he revoked". In this respect, the original director was wrong, and I believe most of us are in agreement there. However, a lot of people are saying he "was going to revoke" or "would have revoked" or "might have revoked" if play had continued, which is different. It's similar to when a declarer claims three tricks with AJx opposite KTx; we can award him two tricks by saying "he might well have misguessed the queen", but that's very different from saying "he misguessed the queen"---something that did not actually happen since he never actually took a 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 Tue Apr 10 05:57:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39JvXJ00198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 05:57:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39JvQt00154 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 05:57:26 +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 MAA12112; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:57:20 -0700 Message-Id: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "blml" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:05:35 CDT." Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:57:21 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > If the former [as by the two statements were not sufficiently > contiguous], the revoke occurred at T11 prior to the tricks claimed. > The second statement is embellishment of the claim which is not to be > accepted; and as the claim has established the revoke, it is too late > to correct it. The claim established the revoke and subjects it to > L64A. One thing I'm sure of is that Law 63A3 ("A revoke becomes established . . . when a member of the offending side makes . . . a claim") cannot apply here. No revoke actually occurred, so there was nothing to establish. When a claim occurs, we basically imagine hypothetically how the play would have gone on without a claim, and award a score based on our imagination. But while, in our imagination, a revoke might have occurred (we normally don't include revokes in our imagined lines of play, but this is different since declarer told everyone he was going to revoke), no claim would have occurred to establish the revoke, since by definition we're hypothesizing about what would have happened *without* a claim. I suppose the revoke might have been established in another way (i.e. Law 63A1), although David Burn feels that the dummy would have prevented this from happening. (Whether the dummy might have felt a sudden need to go to the bathroom at an unfortunate time and therefore would not have been present to prevent the irregularity is an issue that has not been addressed. Is this a "doubtful point" that should be ruled against the offenders? :-) :-)) > What is clear is that from the information it is not clear. What was > the timing of the first statement and the second? This suggested that > I ask in words to the effect, ' what actually happened?' > > This prompted the originator to clarify the matter. To summarize, > the realization of the heart lead instead of the diamond was immediate > and the correction was immediate. I agree that that makes it a whole different problem. -- 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 Apr 10 06:13:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39KDVS03317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 06:13:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f112.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.112]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f39KDQt03313 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 06:13:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:13:19 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.26 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 20:13:18 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.26] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:13:18 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2001 20:13:19.0204 (UTC) FILETIME=[84CE3A40:01C0C131] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >I don't know the answer to this. But my first impression is that any >question that can generate both this comment: > > > Since when is it "illegal" to revoke? > >and this one: > > > There's nothing in the laws that say you can't play the same card > > twice. > >must have come from the other side of the Looking-Glass, or perhaps >from the Twilight Zone [insert theme music here] . . . I don't quite see it or just haven't found it yet. There's 65A and 66C to get you to quit your tricks and 45A which says you must draw the card from your hand, excluding the quitted tricks pile. Not that those laws should be infringed, there's no explicit penalty or prohibition for replaying a card nor any explicit procedure for correcting it. I assume rulings based on such would come down to L12A1, L12A2, or L47B depending on when it was discovered and when it was reported. But if you're not playing cards and quitting tricks, why can't one card be claimed to win two 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 Apr 10 07:24:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39LNck03485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:23:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39LNWt03481 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 07:23:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp045.pullman.com [204.227.174.45]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA45266 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010409142337.007409f8@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 14:23:49 -0700 To: Bridge Laws From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Fearghal O'Boyle >To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' >Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 2:52 PM >Subject: [BLML] Law 34 or not? > > >| >| Dealer North >| North East South West >| 1NT Pass (out of turn) >| >| TD called. North accepts the POOT and East also Passes. >| >| So the auction has gone: >| North East South West >| 1NT Pass (out of turn) >| Pass Pass >| >| There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know >if he has a call? >| >| Best regards, >| Fearghal. > >After reading L34 a few times I noticed several words set apart from >the relevant first sentence by a comma- " ., thereby depriving a >player of his right to call at that turn." > >If that phrase were outright eliminated the outcome surely would give >unilateral right to the player to call. Therefore that language >suggests that to restore the player's turn the cause of depriving the >player at that turn needs to be the POOT. In reviewing the case, the >director was summoned and the missed player's partner was given the >opportunity to not accept the POOT. Had he done so his partner would >have had the opportunity to call at that turn. As he accepted the >POOT it was not the POOT that caused the player to skip his turn but >the election to not penalize the POOT. This is a clear path to ruling >that the auction ended at the third pass. This simple can't be the right interpretation. Law 34 would never apply, because the POOT can only deprive a player of his turn to call if it is accepted. Furthermore, in the following standard situation exactly the same argument would apply: North East South West 1NT Pass POOT Pass(accepting the POOT) Here the almost universal interpretation of Law 34 is that the last two passes are "subsequent" and canceled, so the bidding reverts to: North East South West 1NT Pass with South to bid. Scott -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 08:07:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39M6tH03566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:06:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f39M6mt03560 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:06:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp045.pullman.com [204.227.174.45]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA73318 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:06:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010409150656.00eb7aa0@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:07:06 -0700 To: Bridge Laws From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >In reviewing the case, the >director was summoned and the missed player's partner was given the >opportunity to not accept the POOT. Had he done so his partner would >have had the opportunity to call at that turn. As he accepted the >POOT it was not the POOT that caused the player to skip his turn but >the election to not penalize the POOT. This is a clear path to ruling >that the auction ended at the third pass. This simple can't be the right interpretation. Law 34 would never apply, because the POOT can only deprive a player of his turn to call if it is accepted. >Furthermore, in the following standard situation exactly the same argument would apply: > > North East South West > 1NT Pass POOT > Pass(accepting the POOT) ... That should be: Furthermore, in the following standard situation exactly the same argument would apply: North East South West 1NT Pass POOT Pass* Pass *(accepting the POOT) Here the almost universal interpretation of Law 34 is that the last two passes are "subsequent" and canceled, so the bidding reverts to: North East South West 1NT Pass with South to bid. Scott -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 08:30:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39MUWP03649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:30:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f39MUPt03645 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:30:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp233-179.worldonline.nl [195.241.233.179]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2359238AD3; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:30:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001a01c0c144$eefa6ca0$b3e9f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:32:13 +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 David >Jac Fuchs writes >>Fearghal O'Boyle asked: >> >> >>> >>> Dealer North >>> North East South West >>> 1NT Pass (out of turn) >>> >>> TD called. North accepts the POOT and East also Passes. >>> >>> So the auction has gone: >>> North East South West >>> 1NT Pass (out of turn) >>> Pass Pass >>> >>> There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know if >>he has a call? >> >>I believe I see what your problem is: South objects and is the player >>who missed his turn, but id we cancel all subsequent passes it should >>not be his turn to call, but it should be Easts ... >>Yet I would rule this in the spirit of L34: I would cancel the three >>passes and tell East he is to bid over 1NT - this, I trust, is the >>ruling the Lawmakers intended us to make. >>I would welcome an improvement in the text of L34 that would make L34 >>cover this case, of course. > > Please explain: as I read L34, all the requirements are covered so it >certainly applies. What have I missed? You haven't missed anything. I agree L34 applies, but applying it literally would take the bidding back to North East South West pass where it is up to SOUTH to call next. This does not match my feeling of what would be bridge: I would very much prefer it being Easts turn to call now. That is what I tried to convey. Is my feeling that silly ? 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 Apr 10 08:47:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f39MlEV03692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:47:14 +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 ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f39Ml7t03688 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:47:08 +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 PAA15507; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:47:01 -0700 Message-Id: <200104092247.PAA15507@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:59:33 +0200." <3.0.5.32.20010408225933.02a0ce90@pop3.norton.antivirus> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:47:01 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > At 08:52 PM 08-04-01 +0100, you wrote: > > > > Dealer North > > North East South West > > 1NT Pass (out of turn) > > > > TD called. North accepts the POOT and East also Passes. > > > > So the auction has gone: > > North East South West > > 1NT Pass (out of turn) > > Pass Pass > > > > There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know if he > has a call? > > > > Best regards, > > Fearghal. > > > > in fact east will be next one to call, after N; it is indeed a l34 case > regards, > anton I agree that L34 applies, but I think South, not East, will be the next to call. The Law says: > When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not > end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a > player of his right to call at that turn. Although South and East were both skipped by the POOT, East made a call later, and thus I don't consider him to have been deprived of his right to call. The text continues: > The auction reverts to the player who missed his turn. and the phrase "the player who missed his turn" appears to me to refer to the player referred to in the previous sentence, who was deprived of the right to call---i.e. South. Which of course brings us to the problem Scott pointed out---if, after the TD rules that the auction reverts to South, South, West, and North all pass, then East hasn't had a chance to call, so do we apply L34 again? I don't think so. If we rule that the auction is to revert to South (as I read the Law), then the following auction is legal: North East South West 1NT pass pass pass and there are no passes "out of turn", and therefore L34 doesn't apply. I know, it looks funny, but that's what the Law seems to say. Maybe the Law should say "The auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call when the first pass out of rotation occurred", but it doesn't. -- 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 Apr 10 10:22:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3A0MDc20879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:22:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3A0Lxt20818 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:22:00 +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 UAA05774 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA21854 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:21:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104100021.UAA21854@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: MI from Japan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "James Vickers" > I disagree, Steve. When assigning likelihoods to possible alternatives, = > you surely consider how likely they would be absent the irregularity = > (L16A) in order to determine whether or not the offender had any = > reasonable alternatives. Alain has already answered, but I have a couple of other comments. First of all, it was a _postulate_ of the original post that the 4S bid was illegal. My main point was that _no part_ of an illegal action can be assigned as part of the NOS score. L12C2 is quite clear on that. > There were no reasonable alternatives to the = > 50% call in the case Eric cites (they were all judged to be around 10%), = > therefore the call chosen was legal and the table result stands.=20 I don't remember where the original case took place, but the definition of "logical alternative" depends on jurisdiction. In the ACBL, for example, a 10% action would certainly be a LA. > It is only once logical alternatives have been found (>30% under the = > EBU), the action deemed to have been suggested over and above such = > alternatives, and damage thereby done to the non-offenders that L12C2 = > applies. This seems to be a common misunderstanding. The question (outside the ACBL) is not whether there is some one action other than the one taken that 25-30% of players would choose. Rather, it is whether the action taken would be chosen by 70-75% of players. Even if no single other action has high probability, logical alternatives exist. The classic case is the one cited by Alain: suppose 50% of players would double, but the other 50% would bid. If double is suggested by UI, it is illegal, even if no single bid would have much support. (If I have misunderstood the rules in the RoW, I'm sure someone will correct me.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 10:51:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3A0pNn00521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:51:23 +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 f3A0pEt00482 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:51:15 +1000 (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 14mmN2-000Jop-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:51:05 +0000 Message-ID: <35BjuSAoZi06Ew1B@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:15:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid References: <200104091506.QAA27435@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200104091506.QAA27435@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 Stevenson, in response to >> Jerry Fusselman: > >> >1. 1NT-1D (playing DONT). Would you give an option to accept 1D? >> >> Yes. >> >> > If 1D was accepted, would partner be allowed to know that >> > Overcaller had a major too? >> >> Certainly not. > >Under what law? >Why can't partner guess that overcaller intended 2D if there is no UI. It depends what you read into the term "know". Of course he can guess what he likes, but I meant no-one would tell him. I think you and I have read the question differently. [s] >> > 2. >> > 1S P 3S P >> > 3C >> > Would you allow converting to 4C regardless of anything else? >> > What if this pair played that 4C was always Gerber? >> >> Allow them to convert to 4C. > >So 4C is incontrovertibly not conventional, even though it might be Gerber? I think you have lost the plot here, young Robin! I am being put through a catechism about my suggested Law, which makes no distinction between conventional and natural bids. [s] >> > 4. >> > 1S P 2NT P >> > 2S >> > They play Jacoby 2NT. You would allow correction to 3S without barring >> > partner? >> >> Yes. > >So 3S is incontrovertibly not conventional, even though it is a response to >an artificial raise and may be conventional (depending on their agreements)? Same comment as 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 Tue Apr 10 11:23:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3A1NUO10662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:23:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3A1NMt10621 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:23:23 +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 14mmsH-0004i4-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:23:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 02:21:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a 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 >>Todd Zimnoch writes >> >An impossible claim statement is dismissed, not followed. The revoke >>cannot >> >be established because it's an illegal line of play. >> >> Perhaps you could explain this to me? Revokes are often established >>even though the revoke is an illegal line of play. > > A claim can establish a revoke (63A3), but a revoke requires a played >card (61A). > > You do not allow illegal lines of play as a matter of ruling on claims. > Or at least shouldn't. Otherwise I might claim to lead from dummy when >there's no actual transportation there. No card has been played, so it's >not a lead out of turn. Would you allow declarer to do that when it loses a >trick in play, dummy contests the claim, but opponents would be glad to >accept the lead out of turn if it had actually been played out? No, of course not, but I do not see the point of quoting non- comparable cases. If the hand had been played out instead of claimed, declarer would quite likely have revoked: in your case he would not have likely led out of turn, so it is not a comparable situation. When someone probably would have made one trick by playing the hand out, why should we award him three tricks when he claims? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 11:28:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3A1SOP12334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:28:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3A1SEt12283 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:28:14 +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 14mmwy-000Hov-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:28:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 02:25:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? References: <001a01c0c144$eefa6ca0$b3e9f1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <001a01c0c144$eefa6ca0$b3e9f1c3@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 > > >>Jac Fuchs writes >>>Fearghal O'Boyle asked: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Dealer North >>>> North East South West >>>> 1NT Pass (out of turn) >>>> >>>> TD called. North accepts the POOT and East also Passes. >>>> >>>> So the auction has gone: >>>> North East South West >>>> 1NT Pass (out of turn) >>>> Pass Pass >>>> >>>> There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know >if >>>he has a call? >>> >>>I believe I see what your problem is: South objects and is the >player >>>who missed his turn, but id we cancel all subsequent passes it >should >>>not be his turn to call, but it should be Easts ... >>>Yet I would rule this in the spirit of L34: I would cancel the three >>>passes and tell East he is to bid over 1NT - this, I trust, is the >>>ruling the Lawmakers intended us to make. >>>I would welcome an improvement in the text of L34 that would make >L34 >>>cover this case, of course. >> >> Please explain: as I read L34, all the requirements are covered so >it >>certainly applies. What have I missed? > >You haven't missed anything. I agree L34 applies, but applying it >literally would take the bidding back to >North East South West >pass >where it is up to SOUTH to call next. This does not match my feeling >of what would be bridge: I would very much prefer it being Easts turn >to call now. That is what I tried to convey. Is my feeling that silly >? Well, it would not worry me. It is a book ruling: it is unambiguous: read it from the book and do not worry about 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 Tue Apr 10 11:32:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3A1Vr113490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:31:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium (ruthenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3A1Vkt13455 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:31:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.197.106] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14mn0P-0000UD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 02:31:42 +0100 Message-ID: <005601c0c15d$c66faa20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3ACD84ED.16E0BBC9@village.uunet.be> <200104051716.KAA18961@mailhub.irvine.com> <3ACD84ED.16E0BBC9@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010409133553.0081ae50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] L63 and L69 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 02:30:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > >Herman, you're indulging in floccipaucinihilopilification. > > AG : you even used the word right ! Well if you like using long words, ask > a Hungarian TD how he would treat such a case ? Not quite right. That's "floccipaucinihilipilification", the action of estimating as worthless. > The TD's response should be one word, and if I remember well, it should be > 45 letters long. Was mentioned in old versions of the Guinness, but I lost > my copy. "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis", a disease of the lungs prevalent among coal miners and people who sneak out between rounds to smoke in the toilets. Could well be on the lips of every self-respecting tournament director before long, since it is a far more effective deterrent than procedural penalties seem to be. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 11:44:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3A1iR817295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:44:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3A1iJt17248 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:44:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qta1q.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.168.58]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA15182 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:44:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00d301c0c15f$f23b4b80$3aa8aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <200104091506.QAA27435@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:45:36 -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 Robin Barker wrote > > > 2. > > > 1S P 3S P > > > 3C > > > Would you allow converting to 4C regardless of anything else? > > > What if this pair played that 4C was always Gerber? > > > > Allow them to convert to 4C. > > So 4C is incontrovertibly not conventional, even though it might be Gerber? > > > > 4. > > > 1S P 2NT P > > > 2S > > > They play Jacoby 2NT. You would allow correction to 3S without barring > > > partner? > > > > Yes. > > So 3S is incontrovertibly not conventional, even though it is a response to > an artificial raise and may be conventional (depending on their agreements)? > Greetings Robin, My questions 1--4 were not asking how to rule under current law. I think you may have missed that part of my meaning. I was asking DWS how he would rule under a different law that he prefers which would treat conventional undercalls very similarly to natural undercalls. In other words, I think DWS wishes that all references to "conventional" in L27B1 and 2 were removed. His answers that you quoted were explaining more about his desired law change and how it would work, not how would rule under current law. 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 Apr 10 12:06:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3A26ja24399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:06:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3A26Zt24356 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:06:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.197.106] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14mnY6-0002No-00; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:06:31 +0100 Message-ID: <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:04:53 +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 Adam wrote: > One thing I'm sure of is that Law 63A3 ("A revoke becomes established > . . . when a member of the offending side makes . . . a claim") cannot > apply here. No revoke actually occurred, so there was nothing to > establish. When a claim occurs, we basically imagine hypothetically > how the play would have gone on without a claim, and award a score > based on our imagination. But while, in our imagination, a revoke > might have occurred (we normally don't include revokes in our imagined > lines of play, but this is different since declarer told everyone he > was going to revoke), no claim would have occurred to establish the > revoke, since by definition we're hypothesizing about what would have > happened *without* a claim. DWS and I are answering correspondence on this question in at least three separate forums. It should be noted by BLML regulars that so far, we have found ourselves in complete agreement, a feat which, while no more remarkable than Tiger Woods's "grand slam", is no less remarkable either. I use quotation marks because, when asked at the rubber bridge club today whether I thought the great American's achievement could be counted as a true grand slam, I said: "Well, if I make the last seven tricks on the first hand and the first six tricks on the second, will you give me a grand slam bonus?" I hope I may be forgiven for quoting myself in another incarnation. There are a number of difficult issues here, somewhat clouded by the notion of "equity", which causes the great majority to exclaim, "But of course he hasn't revoked!" (because this would lead to a perceived injustice), and then attempt to interpret the Laws in order to justify their intuition, instead of according to what the Laws actually say. The question, really, is this: is a card named by a player in the course of a claim a "played" card, that can be treated under Law 61A as a "failure to follow suit"? Law 44C4(a) says: A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play. Now, there is no doubt that declarer, when he announced that he would ruff at trick 11, had designated his spade as the card he proposed to play. Therefore, he must play it to that trick. He has then said that he will lead CA to trick 12, thus naming a card to be played to the following trick. There is no doubt in my mind that the significance of these two Laws is that declarer has indeed revoked within the meaning of Law 61A. Strictly speaking, there would be an end of the matter, and the ruling would be two tricks to the defenders. After all, why should a man who announces that he will revoke be treated differently from a man who actually does revoke? There is no qualitative difference between the two acts of absent-mindedness. The only question that might arise is: if a card must be played, but is not in fact physically played, should it be treated under the Laws as if it had been played? Unfortunately, the Laws do not appear to cover this precise point. I would suggest, however, that by analogy with Law 28A, the answer is "Yes". That Law says, in effect, that a player who is forced to pass is considered to have passed whether or not he actually does so at his turn. It seems to me valid to infer that a player who is forced to play a card is considered to have played it, whether or not he actually does so at his turn. 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 Apr 10 14:57:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3A4uka19468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:56:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3A4uYt19464 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:56:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qta1q.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.168.58]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA12121 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <012601c0c17a$cab7fc00$3aa8aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <200104091506.QAA27435@tempest.npl.co.uk> <35BjuSAoZi06Ew1B@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 23:57:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Robin Barker writes > >David Stevenson, in response to > >> Jerry Fusselman: > > > >> >1. 1NT-1D (playing DONT). Would you give an option to accept 1D? > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> > If 1D was accepted, would partner be allowed to know that > >> > Overcaller had a major too? > >> > >> Certainly not. > > > >Under what law? > >Why can't partner guess that overcaller intended 2D if there is no UI. > > It depends what you read into the term "know". Of course he can guess > what he likes, but I meant no-one would tell him. I think you and I > have read the question differently. > Thanks David, I read your initial answer Robin's way too and I meant the question the way Robin understood it. No, I did not mean to suggest that director would announce the contents of anyone's hand! Maybe I should have phrased it, "would the possibility that overcaller has a major be AI?" Anyway, you agree that there is some confusion as to whether or not he has a major to go with diamonds. Also, you say that everyone has a right to guess. But this might be unfair to NOs, as advancer usually knows much more about the probability that a major accompanies those diamonds. Would you give advancer any 16A caution? Would you give overcaller any 16A caution? If so, what you say? Perhaps you or someone can clarify. 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 Apr 10 15:55:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3A5snL07464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:54:49 +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 (f72.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3A5sgt07429 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:54:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:54:33 -0700 Received: from 172.156.86.22 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 05:54:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.156.86.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 22:54:33 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2001 05:54:33.0927 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7C2A570:01C0C182] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Todd Zimnoch writes > > You do not allow illegal lines of play as a matter of ruling on >claims. > > Or at least shouldn't. Otherwise I might claim to lead from dummy when > >there's no actual transportation there. No card has been played, so it's > >not a lead out of turn. Would you allow declarer to do that when it >loses a > >trick in play, dummy contests the claim, but opponents would be glad to > >accept the lead out of turn if it had actually been played out? > > No, of course not, but I do not see the point of quoting non- >comparable cases. I find they are quite comparable. Is there any precedent for sticking declarer with an illegal line-of-play during a claim and then adjusting the score based on the penalties that would have been assigned had the irregularity occured? If you're going to force a claimer to revoke, you must also be willing to let him try to win two tricks with the same card or lead out of turn, and then adjust the score. But you don't. >If the hand had been played out instead of claimed, >declarer would quite likely have revoked: in your case he would not have >likely led out of turn, so it is not a comparable situation. I do not believe that what irregularities claimer is likely to have committed are yet at issue. I'm not convinced that you can force anyone after a claim to "play" cards illegally, even if their claim statement leads to that effect. > When someone probably would have made one trick by playing the hand >out, why should we award him three tricks when he claims? Because the Law offers no authority otherwise. If it does, you'll have to cite which laws in order allow you to do so. Though in this example I would consider a losing duck to the queen, resulting in 2 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 Apr 10 17:43:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3A7ZKL22692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:35:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3A7YOt22581 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:34:25 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA12397; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:34:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Apr 10 09:34:08 2001 +0200 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 <01K28AFUUKWU005BAM@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:33:38 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2JAL00DV>; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:33:07 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:33:25 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: "'N. Scott Cardell'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7FE@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 > >| North East South West > >| 1NT Pass (out of turn) > >| Pass Pass > >| > >| There have been 3 passes in succession and South wants to know > >if he has a call? > >| > >| Best regards, > >| Fearghal. If he wants to continue the auction after the three passes the answer is NO. But L34 applies. The TD establishes that East AND South are deprived of their right to call. So the auction goes back to them. And I agree L34 does not say that east should get the first opportunity now, but what in L34 suggests that only south should get it? In another message the following example was given: N E S W 1NT pass pass (or something similar) with the conclusion that now both passes have to be taken away. WRONG. we need three passes after a call and skip to apply L34. So we start giving N the opportunity to make a call explaining that if he passes the auction goes back to East. What am I missing that makes this problem so easy to handle? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 22:45:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3ACiSv11306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:44:28 +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-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 f3ACiIt11260 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:44:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-148.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.148]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3ACiDA29233 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:44:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD2DCB8.3EA50EAD@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:13:12 +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] Law 34 or not? References: <200104092247.PAA15507@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: > > > Although South and East were both skipped by the POOT, East made a > call later, and thus I don't consider him to have been deprived of his > right to call. The text continues: > > > The auction reverts to the player who missed his turn. > > and the phrase "the player who missed his turn" appears to me to refer > to the player referred to in the previous sentence, who was deprived > of the right to call---i.e. South. > > Which of course brings us to the problem Scott pointed out---if, after > the TD rules that the auction reverts to South, South, West, and North > all pass, then East hasn't had a chance to call, so do we apply L34 > again? I don't think so. If we rule that the auction is to revert to > South (as I read the Law), then the following auction is legal: > > North East South West > 1NT pass pass > pass > > and there are no passes "out of turn", and therefore L34 doesn't > apply. I know, it looks funny, but that's what the Law seems to say. > perfect analysis. This is indeed what the laws dictate. Strange but true. > Maybe the Law should say "The auction reverts to the player whose turn > it was to call when the first pass out of rotation occurred", but it > doesn't. > And it should - Grattan ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 22:45:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3ACiQB11296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:44:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3ACiFt11238 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:44:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-148.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.148]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3ACi7A29173 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:44:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD2DB5F.F6FB02D7@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:07:27 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@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: > > Adam wrote: > > I use quotation marks because, when asked at the rubber bridge > club today whether I thought the great American's achievement could be > counted as a true grand slam, I said: "Well, if I make the last seven > tricks on the first hand and the first six tricks on the second, will > you give me a grand slam bonus?" > LOL !! > I hope I may be forgiven for quoting myself in another incarnation. > If you tell stories like this one, you are forgiven everything ! Even faulty analysis of the bridge laws : > The question, really, is this: is a card named by a player in the > course of a claim a "played" card, that can be treated under Law 61A > as a "failure to follow suit"? Law 44C4(a) says: > > A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as > the card he proposes to play. > But also, L68A says that a claim occurs when a player says something about tricks after the current one. And L68D says that play ends. So declarer cannot revoke! he has claimed and no cards should be played. > Now, there is no doubt that declarer, when he announced that he would > ruff at trick 11, had designated his spade as the card he proposed to > play. Therefore, he must play it to that trick. No he musn't - play has already ceased and the claim should be dealt with. > He has then said that > he will lead CA to trick 12, thus naming a card to be played to the > following trick. No he hasn't > There is no doubt in my mind that the significance of > these two Laws is that declarer has indeed revoked within the meaning > of Law 61A. Strictly speaking, there would be an end of the matter, > and the ruling would be two tricks to the defenders. After all, why > should a man who announces that he will revoke be treated differently > from a man who actually does revoke? There is no qualitative > difference between the two acts of absent-mindedness. > > The only question that might arise is: if a card must be played, but > is not in fact physically played, should it be treated under the Laws > as if it had been played? Unfortunately, the Laws do not appear to > cover this precise point. I would suggest, however, that by analogy > with Law 28A, the answer is "Yes". That Law says, in effect, that a > player who is forced to pass is considered to have passed whether or > not he actually does so at his turn. It seems to me valid to infer > that a player who is forced to play a card is considered to have > played it, whether or not he actually does so at his turn. > All moot issues. There has been a claim, and no cards can ever be played other than in the mind of the TD. Three tricks to declarer. > 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 Tue Apr 10 23:03:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AD3AB13306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:03:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3AD2ut13301 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:02:57 +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 14mxnG-0004dO-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:02:50 +0100 Message-ID: <47yAeKAlQw06Ew18@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:01:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Conventional Insufficient Bid References: <200104091506.QAA27435@tempest.npl.co.uk> <35BjuSAoZi06Ew1B@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <012601c0c17a$cab7fc00$3aa8aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <012601c0c17a$cab7fc00$3aa8aec7@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 >DWS wrote: > >> Robin Barker writes >> >David Stevenson, in response to >> >> Jerry Fusselman: >> > >> >> >1. 1NT-1D (playing DONT). Would you give an option to accept 1D? >> >> >> >> Yes. >> >> >> >> > If 1D was accepted, would partner be allowed to know that >> >> > Overcaller had a major too? >> >> >> >> Certainly not. >> > >> >Under what law? >> >Why can't partner guess that overcaller intended 2D if there is no UI. >> >> It depends what you read into the term "know". Of course he can guess >> what he likes, but I meant no-one would tell him. I think you and I >> have read the question differently. >> > >Thanks David, > >I read your initial answer Robin's way too and I meant the question the way >Robin understood it. No, I did not mean to suggest that director would >announce the contents of anyone's hand! Maybe I should have phrased it, >"would the possibility that overcaller has a major be AI?" > >Anyway, you agree that there is some confusion as to whether or not he has a >major to go with diamonds. Also, you say that everyone has a right to guess. >But this might be unfair to NOs, as advancer usually knows much more about >the probability that a major accompanies those diamonds. Would you give >advancer any 16A caution? Would you give overcaller any 16A caution? If so, >what you say? Perhaps you or someone can clarify. I doubt that I would give players any UI caution if there is no attempt to give UI. One of the bid advantages of my suggested Law is that it cuts UI down. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 23:04:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AD4MH13318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:04:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AD4Gt13314 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:04:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.243.115] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14mxoa-0002qj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:04:12 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c0c1be$a6133ec0$73f37ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:03:31 +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 Todd wrote: [TZ] > > > You do not allow illegal lines of play as a matter of ruling on > >claims. > > > Or at least shouldn't. Otherwise I might claim to lead from dummy when > > >there's no actual transportation there. No card has been played, so it's > > >not a lead out of turn. Would you allow declarer to do that when it > >loses a > > >trick in play, dummy contests the claim, but opponents would be glad to > > >accept the lead out of turn if it had actually been played out? [DWS] > > No, of course not, but I do not see the point of quoting non- > >comparable cases. [TZ] > I find they are quite comparable. Is there any precedent for sticking > declarer with an illegal line-of-play during a claim and then adjusting the > score based on the penalties that would have been assigned had the > irregularity occured? If you're going to force a claimer to revoke, you > must also be willing to let him try to win two tricks with the same card or > lead out of turn, and then adjust the score. But you don't. I am not sure I have fully grasped all of this. If the question is about a declarer who claims on the basis that he will lead from dummy when he isn't in dummy, then, if the defenders wish to contest the claim on the basis that the illegal lead from dummy would be to their advantage, they should obviously be allowed to do so. After all, if declarer had played as he said he would play, the defenders would have the option of accepting a lead from the wrong hand. Why should they be denied this option because declarer has claimed rather than played? The next time I play bridge, I will never drop a trick. How? Simple. I will claim on the basis of an illegal play. The director will then come and give me all the tricks I could possibly have made by playing legally. Or at least, he will if he is from the Zimnoch - Beneschan School of Directors. 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 Apr 10 23:07:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AD7hU13339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:07:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3AD7Wt13334 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:07:33 +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 14mxrk-0005Al-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:07:28 +0100 Message-ID: <8b7BGMADVw06EwXw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:06:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a 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 >>From: David Stevenson >>Todd Zimnoch writes >> > You do not allow illegal lines of play as a matter of ruling on >>claims. >> > Or at least shouldn't. Otherwise I might claim to lead from dummy when >> >there's no actual transportation there. No card has been played, so it's >> >not a lead out of turn. Would you allow declarer to do that when it >>loses a >> >trick in play, dummy contests the claim, but opponents would be glad to >> >accept the lead out of turn if it had actually been played out? >> >> No, of course not, but I do not see the point of quoting non- >>comparable cases. > > I find they are quite comparable. Is there any precedent for sticking >declarer with an illegal line-of-play during a claim and then adjusting the >score based on the penalties that would have been assigned had the >irregularity occured? If you're going to force a claimer to revoke, you >must also be willing to let him try to win two tricks with the same card or >lead out of turn, and then adjust the score. But you don't. No, I like to follow the laws as written. I am interpreting L70A: you are quoting a case where L70A says the opposite. >>If the hand had been played out instead of claimed, >>declarer would quite likely have revoked: in your case he would not have >>likely led out of turn, so it is not a comparable situation. > > I do not believe that what irregularities claimer is likely to have >committed are yet at issue. I'm not convinced that you can force anyone >after a claim to "play" cards illegally, even if their claim statement leads >to that effect. Fine. So you are just saying that when a person is going to play cards in a particular way you are giving him a bonus based on something that is not written in the Laws? >> When someone probably would have made one trick by playing the hand >>out, why should we award him three tricks when he claims? > > Because the Law offers no authority otherwise. If it does, you'll have >to cite which laws in order allow you to do so. Though in this example I >would consider a losing duck to the queen, resulting in 2 tricks. That's easy: L70D gives us the authority for my approach. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 10 23:52:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3ADq7H13443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:52:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3ADq0t13439 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:52:01 +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 f3ADptL02499 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@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, 10 Apr 2001 09:53:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: <3AD2DB5F.F6FB02D7@village.uunet.be> References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:07 AM 4/10/01, Herman wrote: >David Burn wrote: > > > A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as > > the card he proposes to play. > >But also, L68A says that a claim occurs when a player says >something about tricks after the current one. >And L68D says that play ends. > >So declarer cannot revoke! he has claimed and no cards >should be played. > > > Now, there is no doubt that declarer, when he announced that he would > > ruff at trick 11, had designated his spade as the card he proposed to > > play. Therefore, he must play it to that trick. > >No he musn't - play has already ceased and the claim should >be dealt with. > > > He has then said that > > he will lead CA to trick 12, thus naming a card to be played to the > > following trick. > >No he hasn't What we appear to be debating is this: If a player makes a statement to the effect that they will revoke on the next trick, does that make it "'normal'" rather than "irrational" for them to actually do so? Or does it depend on "the class of player involved"? 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 Apr 10 23:54:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3ADs3p13457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:54:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3ADrrt13453 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:53:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-81.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.81]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B3BE338F64; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:51:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000701c0c1c4$0aba34a0$51b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B1 Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:47:59 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Hi BLMLrs, > >I would like your help to make sure I correctly read Law 25B1. > >In cases above, let suppose Law 25A no more applies. >N changes his 1S call to 2D and E Pass (before or >after the attention was drawn to the irregularity). > >1) N E > 1S changed to 2D (TD!) P (after TD gives his ruling) > > First sentence of LB1 clearly applies (The substituted call > may be accepted by offender's LHO). No more penalty. > I assume that east made some statement to accept the 2D-bid. >2) N E > 1S changed to 2D (TD!) P (before TD comes to table) > > The attention was drawn to the irregularity but E Pass > before waiting for the TD ruling. Law 9B2 applies. > Must the Pass now stand, making the 2D de facto accepted > without penalty? yes, as after an insufficient or OOT call > Does the Pass be cancelled.... and then ??? > >3) N E > 1S changed to 2D P (before TD is called) > > E called before attention was drawn to the irregularity. > TD must try to know if LHO intended to call on 1S or 2D. > > If E intended to P on 1S, 2D stands but E may now change > his call (Law 16C2 applies). Second sentence of LB1. > > If E intended to P on 2D, I think the P must stand (?). > What about Law 16C2 in this case? The reference to 16C2 applies to LHO when changing his call. So not changing it 16C2 can't apply. And this law seems to say that by accepting the second call L16 and 26 do not apply anymore for the side that changed its call. If you do not like that I tend to agree, but the law is clear. I have to say that your understanding of this law is impressive, not many will join you. We had a good player who tried to describe the meaning in our Dutch bulletin (magazine) and made a mess of it. And then of course he accused me to be responsible for incomprehensible laws. 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 00:10:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AEAQH13534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:10:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AEAKt13530 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:10:20 +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 KAA18596 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA29252 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:10:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104101410.KAA29252@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > The question, really, is this: is a card named by a player in the > course of a claim a "played" card, that can be treated under Law 61A > as a "failure to follow suit"? Law 44C4(a) says: > > A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as > the card he proposes to play. There is also L68D to consider. How can a player play a card if play has ceased? In spite of that, I thought your final ruling was the same one I would have made: one trick to the defense if H-K is in East, zero tricks if in West. Ruling as if there was an established revoke, and transferring two penalty tricks, seems clearly wrong to me. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 00:17:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AEHap14693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:17:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AEHTt14661 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:17:30 +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 KAA18956 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA29270 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:17:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104101417.KAA29270@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > > North East South West > > 1NT pass pass > > pass > > > > and there are no passes "out of turn", and therefore L34 doesn't > > apply. Huh?! South's pass is out of turn, if the above means East was skipped. L34 applies, auction reverts to East. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 00:34:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AEYOQ18930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:34:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hera.fmg.uva.nl (hera.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AEYGt18888 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:34:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from jppals (dhcp-ivip-212.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.125.212]) by hera.fmg.uva.nl (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f3AEY5R02106 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:34:06 +0200 (MET DST) From: "J.P.Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] L63 and L69 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:31:31 +0200 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: <005601c0c15d$c66faa20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Alain wrote: > > > >Herman, you're indulging in floccipaucinihilopilification. > > > > AG : you even used the word right ! Well if you like using long words, ask > > a Hungarian TD how he would treat such a case ? > > Not quite right. That's "floccipaucinihilipilification", the action of > estimating as worthless. > > > The TD's response should be one word, and if I remember well, it should be > > 45 letters long. Was mentioned in old versions of the Guinness, but I lost > > my copy. > > "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis", > a disease of the lungs prevalent among coal miners and people who sneak > out between rounds to smoke in the toilets. Could well be on the lips > of every self-respecting tournament director before long, since it is a > far more effective deterrent than procedural penalties seem to be. And if you fail as a TD you might like to become a railway switchman. In German: Hauptreichseisenbahnschienenknotenpunkthinundherbeweger JP -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 00:43:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AEhLF22033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:43:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3AEhDt21990 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:43:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-13-43.easynet.co.uk [212.134.22.43]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id AFA40F9100 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:43:03 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke/What is equity...? Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:40:31 +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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads (Sun 08 Apr 2001 11:31) writes: >In-Reply-To: bramble@ukonline.co.uk> >> Why should we specify tricks *at the table*? After trick 4, the >> defence will make five tricks "on any rational legal line of play" and >> declarer's trick 5 revoke has reduced this to four tricks. > >This is definitely not the case. The defence will *never* make more than >three tricks. They will subsequently be awarded some tricks as a result >of the revoke penalty. Positively Orwellian! (All tricks are equal but some tricks are more equal than others) If we're being picky, any penalty under L64A is achieved by "transferring" to the NOS 1 or 2 tricks won by the OS. L64C does not refer to "tricks" - it is not directly concerned with them. It charges the director with determining whether the NOS has been "sufficiently compensated" by the provisions of L64A/B "for the damage caused" and, if he deems not, "assigning an adjusted score". >As to why we should treat this way firstly there are indications that this >was the intent of the lawmakers when the revoke laws were written, >secondly the words of law 64C imply that the revoke penalty is not "part >of equity" rather something to be "compared to equity". I don't follow this at all, particularly as the word " equity" does not appear in L64C (apart from in the heading which is not part of the Law). Let me try once more: Immediately prior to the trick 5 revoke we are told that declarer can make only 10 tricks on any legal line of play. 2 of these tricks will be transferred in respect of the trick 1 revoke (L64A1),so that he now destined to be one down in his contract of 3N. Following the trick 5 revoke he wins 11 tricks less 2 tricks and 3N is now made. Now L64C specifically includes revokes "not subject to penalty" and declarer has made, as a direct consequence of the second revoke, a contract which immediately prior to this revoke was otherwise impossible. It seems abundantly clear to me that the NOS have been "insufficiently compensated for the damage caused " by the second revoke and that the TD should therefore "assign an adjusted score" of 3N-1 under L64C. For further corroboration we turn to the EBL Commentary on the Laws (EBLCL) 64.8 which requires the director "to restore as nearly as possible an equitable result in line with expectations as they were immediately prior to the revoke". Immediately prior to the second revoke the NOS expected a plus score! I should add that I do not like the concept of 'break a rule' (however inadvertantly) and 'gain a trick', which I consider should offend everyone's sense of justice. FortunateIy I believe L64C prevents this happening. If I thought it didn't, I would be looking, as TD, to award an adjusted score under L72B1. If I believed that nothing in the Laws covered the situation, I would consider them deficient. 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 Apr 11 00:47:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AElWc23464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:47:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3AElOt23416 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:47:25 +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 KAA15606 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:47:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA020174032; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:47:12 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:47:11 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Re: [BLML] Law 25B1 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="Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:47:11 -0400" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: >2) N E > 1S changed to 2D (TD!) P (before TD comes to table) > > The attention was drawn to the irregularity but E Pass > before waiting for the TD ruling. Law 9B2 applies. > Must the Pass now stand, making the 2D de facto accepted > without penalty? yes, as after an insufficient or OOT call ________________________________________________________________ Thx Ton. IMHO you are right. Law 27A (Insufficent Bid Accepted): Any insufficent bid may be accepted at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. Law 29A (OOT call): Following a call out of rotation, offender's LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right to penalise. Law 25B1 (Changes of call) The substitue call may be accepted at the option of offender's LHO. Here is the what I wanted to show. These three cases are quite similar. After an infraction during the auction, offender's LHO may elect to accept the call. Only 27A clearly says that LHO de facto accepts when making a call. Would be better if those laws had been written the same manner... 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 Wed Apr 11 01:01:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AF0dr27573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:00:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe52.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AF0Vt27540 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:00:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:00:24 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.191] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:38:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2001 15:00:24.0805 (UTC) FILETIME=[F8CE0950:01C0C1CE] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: blml Cc: Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke | | Roger Pewick wrote: | | > If the former [as by the two statements were not sufficiently | > contiguous], the revoke occurred at T11 prior to the tricks claimed. | > The second statement is embellishment of the claim which is not to be | > accepted; and as the claim has established the revoke, it is too late | > to correct it. The claim established the revoke and subjects it to | > L64A. | | One thing I'm sure of is that Law 63A3 ("A revoke becomes established | . . . when a member of the offending side makes . . . a claim") cannot | apply here. L68D says that 'After any claim or concession, play ceases.' Does it mean play ceases during a claim? or does it mean after a claim play ceases? This suggests the question, 'upon the first word of a statement has there been a claim? Or after the last word of a claim statement? This has two points of relevance. One is marking the point of time when there has been a claim. The other is marking the point of time after which embellishments are extraneous to the claim statement. Assertions have been made that claims consisting of revokes must not force a line of play that includes a revoke. I feel certain that that is the appropriate view. However, some of the assertions made in this thread have been that the claim included a revoke. This was not the case. The claim can only be concerned with future tricks, that is T12 and 13. The revoke, if any, occurred at T11 through application of L45C4a because the statement about ruffing T11 was made during the claim statement but before declarer had claimed. An investigation of the facts established that the repudiation the T11 ruff- and replaced it with the play of the HA at T11 was not subsequent to the claim statement but part of it. | No revoke actually occurred, so there was nothing to | establish. -s- | > What is clear is that from the information it is not clear. What was | > the timing of the first statement and the second? This suggested that | > I ask in words to the effect, ' what actually happened?' | > | > This prompted the originator to clarify the matter. To summarize, | > the realization of the heart lead instead of the diamond was immediate | > and the correction was immediate. | | I agree that that makes it a whole different problem. I was under the impression that the problem was ruling on a revoke/disputed claim. It is my judgement that the information merely makes the ruling clear. regards roger pewick | -- 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 Apr 11 01:26:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AFQIr06281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:26:18 +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 f3AFQBt06238 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:26:11 +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 IAA31874; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:26:06 -0700 Message-Id: <200104101526.IAA31874@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:17:26 EDT." <200104101417.KAA29270@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:26:06 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > > North East South West > > > 1NT pass pass > > > pass > > > > > > and there are no passes "out of turn", and therefore L34 doesn't > > > apply. > > Huh?! South's pass is out of turn, if the above means East was > skipped. L34 applies, auction reverts to East. Here's my point: When the Law 34 is applied (the first time) to handle the previous infraction, the Law, as I read it, says that the auction reverts to South. Therefore, it is properly South's turn to call (even though North made the last call), because the Law says that it's South's turn to call. (L34 takes precedence over L17C in this case.) Thus, South's pass is *not* out of turn, as I see it. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 01:43:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AFhHo10882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:43:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AFh5t10877 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:43:06 +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 LAA23811 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:43:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA29441 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:43:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104101543.LAA29441@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > From: Herman De Wael > > > > North East South West > > > > 1NT pass pass > > > > pass > > > > > > > > and there are no passes "out of turn", and therefore L34 doesn't > > > > apply. > > > > Huh?! South's pass is out of turn, if the above means East was > > skipped. L34 applies, auction reverts to East. > From: Adam Beneschan > Here's my point: When the Law 34 is applied (the first time) to handle > the previous infraction, the Law, as I read it, says that the auction > reverts to South. We seem to be answering two different problems. I took the above to be the entire auction. Yes, I agree that if L34 made it properly South's turn to call in the above situation (and there was an earlier, unshown round of bidding that gave East a chance to call), the auction would be over. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 02:07:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AG7Gw10947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:07:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3AG79t10943 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:07:09 +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 JAA00024; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:07:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200104101607.JAA00024@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:04:53 BST." <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:07:04 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Adam wrote: > > > One thing I'm sure of is that Law 63A3 ("A revoke becomes established > > . . . when a member of the offending side makes . . . a claim") cannot > > apply here. No revoke actually occurred, so there was nothing to > > establish. When a claim occurs, we basically imagine hypothetically > > how the play would have gone on without a claim, and award a score > > based on our imagination. But while, in our imagination, a revoke > > might have occurred (we normally don't include revokes in our imagined > > lines of play, but this is different since declarer told everyone he > > was going to revoke), no claim would have occurred to establish the > > revoke, since by definition we're hypothesizing about what would have > > happened *without* a claim. [snip] > Now, there is no doubt that declarer, when he announced that he would > ruff at trick 11, had designated his spade as the card he proposed to > play. Therefore, he must play it to that trick. He has then said that > he will lead CA to trick 12, thus naming a card to be played to the > following trick. There is no doubt in my mind that the significance of > these two Laws is that declarer has indeed revoked within the meaning > of Law 61A. Strictly speaking, there would be an end of the matter, > and the ruling would be two tricks to the defenders. After all, why > should a man who announces that he will revoke be treated differently > from a man who actually does revoke? There is no qualitative > difference between the two acts of absent-mindedness. Now I'm confused. Earlier, the same David wrote: > The effect of a (properly formed) claim is that, at the end of it, one > is able to compute the score based on what would have happened had the > claimer played his (and perhaps dummy's) cards in accordance with his > statement. . . . I have suggested that what in fact would have > happened if declarer had played in accordance with his statement is that > he would have ruffed the heart lead, whereupon dummy would have asked > him if he had any hearts. . . . one might consider giving declarer > all the tricks if West's heart lead turned out to have been from the > king, two tricks otherwise. David, have you had a change of mind? Earlier, you were going to give declarer either two or three tricks. In the later post, you say "There is no doubt in my mind that the significance of these two Laws is that declarer has indeed revoked within the meaning of Law 61A . . . two tricks to the defenders"---i.e., you're giving just one trick to declarer. In the later post, you're arguing that the defenders should get two tricks because declarer will revoke by playing a spade to T11, and then lead a club to T12, establishing the revoke by Law 63A1. It's funny, because I mentioned this in the part of my post that you snipped, and relied on your earlier post to reject this possibility: # I suppose the revoke might have been established in another way # (i.e. Law 63A1), although David Burn feels that the dummy would have # prevented this from happening. But now you're saying Law 63A1 *does* apply. In any case, my post to which you're responding (and which you seem to disagree with, given your later comments about the "Zimnoch-Beneschan School of Directors"), was an attempt to argue that Law *63A3* does not apply (not 63A1). You're not arguing that L63A3 applies, are you? Please help clear up my confusion. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 02:20:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AGKYl10982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:20:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f45.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AGKRt10978 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:20:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:20:19 -0700 Received: from 172.143.84.229 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:20:19 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.143.84.229] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:20:19 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2001 16:20:19.0956 (UTC) FILETIME=[22F00340:01C0C1DA] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >I am not sure I have fully grasped all of this. If the question is about >a declarer who claims on the basis that he will lead from dummy when he >isn't in dummy, then, if the defenders wish to contest the claim on the >basis that the illegal lead from dummy would be to their advantage, they >should obviously be allowed to do so. After all, if declarer had played >as he said he would play, the defenders would have the option of >accepting a lead from the wrong hand. Why should they be denied this >option because declarer has claimed rather than played? Because there's no wording in 68-71 that implies you adjust for play irregularities occuring in the claim. Irregularities do not occur during a claim. (This following paragraph is more rationalization than justification, however.) Many laws appear to correct irregularities in the least harmful way to the offender while simultaneously not allowing benefit. Here is the perfect chance to correct an irregularity -- (for fans of Dr. Dan Streetmentioner) before it has not yetten been happened. Claimer gets the least number of tricks normal, legal play of the remaining cards yields. >The next time I play bridge, I will never drop a trick. How? Simple. I >will claim on the basis of an illegal play. The director will then come >and give me all the tricks I could possibly have made by playing >legally. Or at least, he will if he is from the Zimnoch - Beneschan >School of Directors. I would, but will let Adam speak for himself, rule that after an illegal line of play, whichever trick it occurs on, the rest of the claim will be ruled as if there were no claim statement. Should I apply your draconian measure for dealing with statementless claims or be gentle? -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 Apr 11 02:27:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AGRmM11023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:27:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f20.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AGRgt11019 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:27:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:27:35 -0700 Received: from 172.143.84.229 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:27:35 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.143.84.229] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:27:35 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2001 16:27:35.0460 (UTC) FILETIME=[2684A640:01C0C1DB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > > I find they are quite comparable. Is there any precedent for >sticking > >declarer with an illegal line-of-play during a claim and then adjusting >the > >score based on the penalties that would have been assigned had the > >irregularity occured? If you're going to force a claimer to revoke, you > >must also be willing to let him try to win two tricks with the same card >or > >lead out of turn, and then adjust the score. But you don't. > > No, I like to follow the laws as written. I am interpreting L70A: you >are quoting a case where L70A says the opposite. You should be more explicit. I am resolving doubt against claimer. I doubt he's getting 3 tricks with that illegal line of play, especially since I can't adjust for the revoke-that-never-happened after the hand is played. > > Because the Law offers no authority otherwise. If it does, you'll >have > >to cite which laws in order allow you to do so. Though in this example I > >would consider a losing duck to the queen, resulting in 2 tricks. > > That's easy: L70D gives us the authority for my approach. Law 70D gives you no authority to assign a penalty for a revoke that didn't happen. The effect of L70D is that you'll be forced to rule on the claim as if there had been no claim statement, or at least no part of the claim statement dealing with the trick of the irregularity and beyond. -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 Apr 11 02:56:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AGtp511064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:55:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AGtet11055 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:55:41 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id SAA06125; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:55:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Apr 10 18:55:16 2001 +0200 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 <01K28U23IHKY005DB9@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:55:12 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2VFGQ27L>; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:54:40 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:35:32 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B800@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 > > perfect analysis. This is indeed what the laws dictate. > Strange but true. > > > Maybe the Law should say "The auction reverts to the player > whose turn > > it was to call when the first pass out of rotation occurred", but it > > doesn't. > > > > And it should - Grattan ! What am I missing? Question is what to do when the auction goes: N E S W 1NT p p p 1)Do we agree that there was a call followed by 3 passes? 2)Do we agree that one of those passes was OOT? 3)Do we agree that by this pass OOT east and west were deprived from their right to call at that turn? 4)Then why don't we start with east after cancelling the 3 passes? 5)Why is it a perfect analysis not to include east and only to give south the right to make a call? To convince me I would like to get an answer in stead of just conclusions. 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 Apr 11 02:56:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AGtur11065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:55:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AGtet11054 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:55:41 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id SAA01066; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:55:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Apr 10 18:55:16 2001 +0200 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 <01K28U25HCEI005C4A@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:55:15 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2VFGQ274>; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:54:44 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:38:01 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B801@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 > > > > > > Although South and East were both skipped by the POOT, East made a > > call later, and thus I don't consider him to have been > deprived of his > > right to call. My laws say: ....depriving a player of his right to call AT THAT TURN. ton The text continues: > > > > > The auction reverts to the player who missed his turn. > > > > and the phrase "the player who missed his turn" appears to > me to refer > > to the player referred to in the previous sentence, who was deprived > > of the right to call---i.e. South. > > > > Which of course brings us to the problem Scott pointed > out---if, after > > the TD rules that the auction reverts to South, South, > West, and North > > all pass, then East hasn't had a chance to call, so do we apply L34 > > again? I don't think so. If we rule that the auction is > to revert to > > South (as I read the Law), then the following auction is legal: > > > > North East South West > > 1NT pass pass > > pass > > > > and there are no passes "out of turn", and therefore L34 doesn't > > apply. I know, it looks funny, but that's what the Law > seems to say. > > > > perfect analysis. This is indeed what the laws dictate. > Strange but true. > > > Maybe the Law should say "The auction reverts to the player > whose turn > > it was to call when the first pass out of rotation occurred", but it > > doesn't. > > > > And it should - Grattan ! > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 03:36:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AHaTH11172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:36:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r15.mx.aol.com (imo-r15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AHaMt11167 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:36:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 5.5f.137c7892 (4232); Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:35:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <5f.137c7892.28049e71@aol.com> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:35:45 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: cyaxares@lineone.net.gester@globalnet.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_5f.137c7892.28049e71_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_5f.137c7892.28049e71_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/01 12:58:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL writes: > > > Maybe the Law should say "The auction reverts to the player > > whose turn > > > it was to call when the first pass out of rotation occurred", but it > > > doesn't. > > > > > > > And it should - Grattan ! > > > +=+ In my reading of the law it does say just that. The auction reverts to the player who missed his turn; it was that player's turn who was on the left of the last player to make a legal call. It has never yet been the turn of the player on his left. But we will add it to the items for the General Review and in the meantime, perhaps, minute a formal interpretation in Bali. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --part1_5f.137c7892.28049e71_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/01 12:58:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL writes:


> > Maybe the Law should say "The auction reverts to the player
> whose turn
> > it was to call when the first pass out of rotation occurred", but it
> > doesn't.
> >
>
> And it should - Grattan !
>


   +=+ In my reading of the law it does say just that. The auction reverts
to the player who missed his turn; it was that player's turn who was on the
left of the last player to make a legal call. It has never yet been the turn
of the player on his left.
          But we will add it to the items for the General Review and in the
meantime, perhaps, minute a formal interpretation in Bali.
                                                   ~ Grattan ~ +=+
--part1_5f.137c7892.28049e71_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 03:38:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AHcA011186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:38:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3AHc5t11182 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:38:05 +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 KAA01990; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:38:00 -0700 Message-Id: <200104101738.KAA01990@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:35:32 +0200." <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B800@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:37:59 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman wrote: > What am I missing? > Question is what to do when the auction goes: > > N E S W > 1NT p > p p > 1)Do we agree that there was a call followed by 3 passes? > > 2)Do we agree that one of those passes was OOT? > > 3)Do we agree that by this pass OOT east and west were deprived from their > right to call at that turn? > > 4)Then why don't we start with east after cancelling the 3 passes? > 5)Why is it a perfect analysis not to include east and only to give south > the right to make a call? > > To convince me I would like to get an answer in stead of just conclusions. Before we proceed further, we'll need to know just who passed out of turn. Your post makes it appear that the POOT was made by Southwest. Or perhaps by a kibitzer sitting between South and West? Your questions (3) and (5) just further the confusion: (3) seems to assume South passed out of turn first, (5) seems to assume West did. -- 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 Apr 11 03:49:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AHmvm11218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:48:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com (imo-m06.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AHmpt11214 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:48:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 7.6d.121746cf (4232) for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:48:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <6d.121746cf.2804a169@aol.com> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:48:25 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6d.121746cf.2804a169_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_6d.121746cf.2804a169_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/01 12:22:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kneebee@hotmail.com writes: ? Was it Burn D who said: > Because there's no wording in 68-71 that implies you adjust for play > irregularities occuring in the claim. Irregularities do not occur during a > claim. > > +=+ I think it is patently obvious that if opponent objects to a claim and points to a lead from the wrong hand, the Director deals with the clarification without that lead and anything that hangs on it. He does not accept the objectionable action and try to deal with the claim by allowing an illegality. By the way, because Kojak deletes 99% of blml emails I am unsure, but think I got a whiff that someone had said that a revoke is not an illegality. If so, the writer did not have a grasp of the law; a revoke is a violation of law, and actions that violate the law are illegal. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --part1_6d.121746cf.2804a169_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/01 12:22:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kneebee@hotmail.com writes:

 ? Was it Burn D who said:

Because there's no wording in 68-71 that implies you adjust for play
irregularities occuring in the claim.  Irregularities do not occur during a
claim.


+=+ I think it is patently obvious that if opponent objects to a claim and
points to a lead from the wrong hand, the Director deals with the
clarification without that lead and anything that hangs on it. He does not
accept the objectionable action and try to deal with the claim by allowing
an illegality.
       By the way, because Kojak deletes 99% of blml emails I am unsure, but
think I got a whiff that someone had said that a revoke is not an illegality.
If so, the writer did not have a grasp of the law; a revoke is a violation of
law, and actions that violate the law are illegal.
                                                                      ~
Grattan ~  +=+
--part1_6d.121746cf.2804a169_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 04:17:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AIGrc14623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:16:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3AIGkt14591 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:16:46 +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 NAA12953 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:18:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010410131541.007f9840@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:15:41 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: <6d.121746cf.2804a169@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:48 PM 4/10/2001 EDT, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > +=+ I think it is patently obvious that if opponent objects to a claim and >points to a lead from the wrong hand, the Director deals with the >clarification without that lead and anything that hangs on it. He does not >accept the objectionable action and try to deal with the claim by allowing >an illegality. Well, I think it is not patently obvious. Certainly it is the case that if an opponent objects to a claim because the illegality will benefit the declarer, then the TD rejects the original claim statement and looks for the worst normal line instead. [Where, I agree, normal lines do not include irregularities--although some have argued that revokes, et al, are not 'irrational'.] But I do not think it is obvious that, where declarer has specified a line of play that involves an immediate irregularity, and that irregularity benefits the defense, we must dissalow the irregularity. I have always been very much in favor of being lenient towards claimers, but I don't see why that leniency must include waiving irregularities that the claimer has explicitly stated that he will commit. It will be different of the irregularity will be committed farther down the road in the imaginary play of the hand after the claim. In that case, it is quite possible that when declarer gets to that point in the hand he will realize the play would be illegal, and so his claim statement will now 'break down' and we look for 'normal plays' from them on. But when declarer starts his claim statement by saying that he will 'lead the ace of clubs from dummy' when he is not in dummy, or 'ruff a diamond and then pull trump', where he cannot ruff a diamond without revoking, I don't see why we must disallow those irregularities if it will be to the benefit of the defenders to have those irregularities committed. Wow! David Burn and I get to agree on a claim ruling! Quite prepared to be proven wrong, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 04:24:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AINp316718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:23:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3AINbt16663 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:23:38 +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 NAA15634 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:25:52 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010410132237.007fbc70@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:22:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke 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 09:20 AM 4/10/2001 -0700, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: "David Burn" >>I am not sure I have fully grasped all of this. If the question is about >>a declarer who claims on the basis that he will lead from dummy when he >>isn't in dummy, then, if the defenders wish to contest the claim on the >>basis that the illegal lead from dummy would be to their advantage, they >>should obviously be allowed to do so. After all, if declarer had played >>as he said he would play, the defenders would have the option of >>accepting a lead from the wrong hand. Why should they be denied this >>option because declarer has claimed rather than played? > >Because there's no wording in 68-71 that implies you adjust for play >irregularities occuring in the claim. Irregularities do not occur during a >claim. Well, I see nothing in L68-71 that say _that_, either. I see language that says that we look at alternative 'normal' lines, and that normal excludes irrational lines. Since I consider all irregularities irrational, I will not 'invent' irregularities not included in the original claim statement in order to give declarer fewer tricks. But I see nothing that says that we cannot allow irregularities to stand when they are explicitly part of the original claim statement. >(This following paragraph is more rationalization than justification, >however.) >Many laws appear to correct irregularities in the least harmful way to the >offender while simultaneously not allowing benefit. Here is the perfect >chance to correct an irregularity -- (for fans of Dr. Dan Streetmentioner) >before it has not yetten been happened. Claimer gets the least number of >tricks normal, legal play of the remaining cards yields. I am willing to say that "plays" that occur after a line of play has broken down "haven't happened". I do not agree that a first-trick-of- claim irregularity "hasn't happened" in the relevant sense. >>The next time I play bridge, I will never drop a trick. How? Simple. I >>will claim on the basis of an illegal play. The director will then come >>and give me all the tricks I could possibly have made by playing >>legally. Or at least, he will if he is from the Zimnoch - Beneschan >>School of Directors. > >I would, but will let Adam speak for himself, rule that after an illegal >line of play, whichever trick it occurs on, the rest of the claim will be >ruled as if there were no claim statement. Should I apply your draconian >measure for dealing with statementless claims or be gentle? Here, unfortunately, David B. goes too far. I will be most happy to play rubber bridge against David at any time, provided that he is constrained to claim immediately and fallaciously on all hands, and provided that those claims will be treated as if he had claimed without making any statement. While he will get all tricks that he could have made playing legally, it will (unfortunately for him) be all tricks he would get playing legally but also playing in a careless and inferior fashion. I'm sure that's the only way I could ever beat him--maybe my best play is better than his most careless and inferior. :) >-Todd Respectfully disagreeing with everybody, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 04:44:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AIiXE17925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:44:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f17.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AIiRt17921 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:44:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:44:20 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.28 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:44:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.28] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:44:20 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2001 18:44:20.0223 (UTC) FILETIME=[40F020F0:01C0C1EE] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Schoderb@aol.com >In a message dated 4/10/01 12:22:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >kneebee@hotmail.com writes: > ? Was it Burn D who said: > > Because there's no wording in 68-71 that implies you adjust for play > > irregularities occuring in the claim. Irregularities do not occur >during a > > claim. Actually that was me. > +=+ I think it is patently obvious that if opponent objects to a claim >and >points to a lead from the wrong hand, the Director deals with the >clarification without that lead and anything that hangs on it. The situation I offered is when declarer claims including a play that leads from the wrong hand. Opponents accept the claim and would have accepted the lead out of turn in play, but dummy objects to the claim. Do you still allow the illegal play or force declarer to play from the correct hand? -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 06:20:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AKK6w23993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 06:20:06 +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 f3AKJxt23984 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 06:20:00 +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 QAA05900 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:19:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA29794 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:19:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:19:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104102019.QAA29794@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > My laws say: ....depriving a player of his right to call AT THAT TURN. It's not obvious just what those last three words mean. In your example auction: N E S W 1NT ... ... p p p East has had a perfectly good chance to call over 1NT and indeed has used that opportunity to say 'pass'. Of course there has been some intervening funny business, so one could argue that he hasn't had a chance to call _directly_ (or "at that turn") over 1NT. L34 makes clear that South should get a chance to call, but it isn't entirely clear whether East should get a chance to call _first_. I tend to think the language says not, but Ton's view cannot be ignored. In practice, it is unlikely to make much difference. If East didn't want to bid or double at the turn he has already had, why should he want to do so now? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 06:57:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AKuqA25336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 06:56:52 +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 f3AKuit25327 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 06:56:45 +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 QAA07539 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:56:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA29890 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:56:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:56:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104102056.QAA29890@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Grant Sterling > But I do not think it is obvious that, where declarer > has specified a line of play that involves an immediate irregularity, and > that irregularity benefits the defense, we must dissalow the irregularity. It occurs to me that even if you allow the revoke as part of the claim, you certainly cannot assess penalty tricks: L64B3. (Of course that assumes claimer has properly faced his cards as part of the claim.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 07:11:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3ALBLZ25896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:11:21 +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 f3ALBDt25887 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:11:14 +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 OAA07777; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:11:08 -0700 Message-Id: <200104102111.OAA07777@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:19:55 EDT." <200104102019.QAA29794@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:11:07 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > My laws say: ....depriving a player of his right to call AT THAT TURN. > > It's not obvious just what those last three words mean. In your > example auction: > N E S W > 1NT ... ... p > p p > > East has had a perfectly good chance to call over 1NT and indeed has > used that opportunity to say 'pass'. Of course there has been some > intervening funny business, so one could argue that he hasn't had a > chance to call _directly_ (or "at that turn") over 1NT. > > L34 makes clear that South should get a chance to call, but it isn't > entirely clear whether East should get a chance to call _first_. I > tend to think the language says not, but Ton's view cannot be ignored. > > In practice, it is unlikely to make much difference. If East didn't > want to bid or double at the turn he has already had, why should he > want to do so now? Perhaps he was willing to let the opponents play 1NT when he thought he could force them to play there (without giving South a chance to describe his hand) by passing, but now that the TD has ruled that South gets a chance to call, East would like to make a nuisance bid to take some of South's bidding room away. This isn't a good reason to have any sympathy for East. It's his own partner, after all, who screwed things up by passing out of turn; and if East had known the rules and known that South can't be deprived of a chance to call, East would have made his nuisance bid anyway, instead of passing. I don't see any injustice in ruling that the auction may now go N E S W 1NT ... p p p -- 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 Apr 11 07:29:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3ALSo726437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:28:50 +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 f3ALSit26432 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:28:45 +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 OAA08137; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:28:39 -0700 Message-Id: <200104102128.OAA08137@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: [BLML] More on Law 34 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:28:39 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think I've discovered an ambiguity in the Laws: North East South West 1NT pass pass pass(1) (1) out of turn It appears that the conditions stated by Law 34 are met, since a call has been followed by three passes, one of those passes was out of rotation, and West has been deprived of a chance to call. If we apply Law 34, it says that the auction reverts to West, and the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity---with no penalty for anyone. But is this right? Nobody has accepted the pass out of turn, so shouldn't L30B1 be applied instead? That is, the auction reverts to West *and* North is penalized by being required to pass at his next turn. I think a clarification is needed in the Laws. * * * * * A (rather less serious) problem: Suppose we do apply L30B1, as I think we should, and West passes. Now L30B1 says that North must pass when next it is his turn to call. However, it won't be his turn to call again until the next board. Does that mean that North is required to pass on the next board? After all, L30B1 doesn't say "at his next turn to call on the current hand"; it just says "at his next turn". And, if the irregularity occurred on the last board of the event, is the league required to keep track of this and make sure North passes at his first turn of the first board of the next event he enters? I'm kidding, of course, but I wonder whether the wording of L30B1 needs to be clarified to indicate that the penalty applies only if the offender gets another turn during the same auction period, to prevent obnoxious BL's (or players with a sick sense of humor like me) from trying to exploit the possibly ambiguous wording. -- 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 Apr 11 07:39:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3ALd2126819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:39:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3ALcst26811 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:38:55 +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 OAA08334; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:38:48 -0700 Message-Id: <200104102138.OAA08334@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:56:40 EDT." <200104102056.QAA29890@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:38:48 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Grant Sterling > > But I do not think it is obvious that, where declarer > > has specified a line of play that involves an immediate irregularity, and > > that irregularity benefits the defense, we must dissalow the irregularity. > > It occurs to me that even if you allow the revoke as part of the claim, > you certainly cannot assess penalty tricks: L64B3. (Of course that > assumes claimer has properly faced his cards as part of the claim.) Good one, Steve! I think the rest of us all missed that. -- 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 Apr 11 08:12:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AMBrt28060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:11:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AMBit28051 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:11:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.74.218] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14n6MN-0000DM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:11:40 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01c0c20b$20a9c680$da4a073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200104101607.JAA00024@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:10:21 +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 Adam wrote: > Now I'm confused. Earlier, the same David wrote: > > > The effect of a (properly formed) claim is that, at the end of it, one > > is able to compute the score based on what would have happened had the > > claimer played his (and perhaps dummy's) cards in accordance with his > > statement. . . . I have suggested that what in fact would have > > happened if declarer had played in accordance with his statement is that > > he would have ruffed the heart lead, whereupon dummy would have asked > > him if he had any hearts. . . . one might consider giving declarer > > all the tricks if West's heart lead turned out to have been from the > > king, two tricks otherwise. > David, have you had a change of mind? Earlier, you were going to give > declarer either two or three tricks. In the later post, you say > "There is no doubt in my mind that the significance of these two Laws > is that declarer has indeed revoked within the meaning of Law 61A > . . . two tricks to the defenders"---i.e., you're giving just one > trick to declarer. My view on the original question - has declarer actually revoked? - was and remains "Yes, he has". I would have no difficulty with a ruling on that basis; I would have considerable difficulty with a ruling that ignored declarer's claim statement altogether and merely gave him his three "obvious" tricks. But I am aware that this ruling might be - and indeed has been - perceived as inequitable by a substantial number of people, and I offered the "solution" that dummy might draw attention to the revoke as a way in which equity might be preserved. It is not the way I myself would rule, but it is a ruling that I would accept. > Please help clear up my confusion. My own belief is that declarer has ruffed the heart lead at trick 11, because that is what Law 44 says that he has done. This is a revoke, which he has established by announcing the card he will play to trick 12. Law 63A2 (not 63A1) applies, and the defenders should receive two tricks. But if a director or committee were to rule that the revoke would not become established, because dummy would draw attention to it, I would not quarrel with that notion. Whereas I myself would rule two tricks to the defenders, if a ruling of one or no tricks to the defenders (depending on the position or even the continued existence of HK) were given, I would consider this reasonable. I should say that this line of thought did not originate with me, but with my partner Brian Callaghan when I discussed the problem with him. I hope this helps; this is a confused and confusing issue, and I have no wish to add to the confusion by appearing to adopt two contrary positions. In short, I would myself adopt one, but would sanction the other. 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 Apr 11 08:19:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AMJ0p28329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:19:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AMIrt28321 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:18:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.74.218] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14n6TJ-0000hH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:18:50 +0100 Message-ID: <004b01c0c20c$20f07700$da4a073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L63 and L69 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:18:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jan-Peter wrote: > And if you fail as a TD you might like to become a railway > switchman. In German: > > Hauptreichseisenbahnschienenknotenpunkthinundherbeweger Better still, become the captain of a steam boat on the Danube. When you die, your widow and orphans will, in order to receive your pension, need to fill out a form known as a: Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitanswitenundwaisenrentenempfangsb eschedigungsformular. 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 Apr 11 08:26:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AMNcJ28485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:23:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AMNRt28476 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:23:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.74.218] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14n6Xj-00010u-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:23:24 +0100 Message-ID: <005501c0c20c$c45d0340$da4a073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:22:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > What we appear to be debating is this: If a player makes a statement > to the effect that they will revoke on the next trick, does that make > it "'normal'" rather than "irrational" for them to actually do so? > > Or does it depend on "the class of player involved"? This, I respectfully submit, is a red herring. What we are debating is whether or not, when a man says he will play a card instead of actually playing it, a determination should be made on the basis that he has actually played the card. It is not a question of whether revoking is irrational, or merely careless - it is a question of whether to proceed as if the revoke that the claimer announced would occur has for practical purposes actually 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 Apr 11 08:29:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AMT9O28680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:29:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AMSvt28671 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:28:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.74.218] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14n6d3-000310-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:28:53 +0100 Message-ID: <005b01c0c20d$88ed7280$da4a073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "blml" References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:28:13 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger wrote: > The claim can only be concerned with future tricks, that is T12 > and 13. The revoke, if any, occurred at T11 through application of > L45C4a because the statement about ruffing T11 was made during the > claim statement but before declarer had claimed. An investigation of > the facts established that the repudiation the T11 ruff- and replaced > it with the play of the HA at T11 was not subsequent to the claim > statement but part of it. As DWS has pointed out elsewhere (and, mirabile dictu, I continue to agree with him), a claim is not concerned "only" with future tricks. Certainly, for a statement to be a claim, it must contain some element that refers to future tricks; but it is not the case that anything said about the current trick does not constitute part of the claim. A claim may refer - indeed, very often does refer - to both the current trick and future tricks; anything said about the current trick is just as much part of the claim as anything said about future tricks. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 08:38:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AMcWk29009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:38:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AMcOt29001 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:38:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.74.218] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14n6mC-00020g-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:38:20 +0100 Message-ID: <006301c0c20e$dad07880$da4a073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200104101410.KAA29252@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:37:39 +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 Steve wrote: > > From: "David Burn" > > The question, really, is this: is a card named by a player in the > > course of a claim a "played" card, that can be treated under Law 61A > > as a "failure to follow suit"? Law 44C4(a) says: > > > > A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as > > the card he proposes to play. > > There is also L68D to consider. How can a player play a card if play > has ceased? He cannot, obviously. Herman has made the same point, his view being that tricks subsequent to a claim occur only in the "mind of the TD" (from which, given the minds of most TDs, may angels and ministers of grace defend us). But the fact remains that in evaluating a claim, a TD is bound to consider first and foremost the line of play stated by the claimer; if this consists in so many words of "I will revoke", I believe that the TD is obliged to rule as if play had proceeded in such a way that the claimer did indeed revoke, and to apply the appropriate revoke penalty. I believe that the same consideration applies if the claimer has stated, in so many words, "I will lead from the wrong hand" (despite Grattan's assertion that the contrary is "patently obvious"). A claim is, in short, an accelerated form of play; irregularities specified in a claim should be treated as though they had actually occurred in play. Otherwise, as I have whimsically suggested (though I was taken rather too seriously), no one would ever need to play a hand at all - just claim, and you will never revoke or lead from the wrong hand again. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 08:46:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AMk5m29263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:46:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium (ruthenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AMjwt29255 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:45:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.74.218] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14n6tQ-0002iP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:45:49 +0100 Message-ID: <007901c0c20f$e6273100$da4a073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010410132237.007fbc70@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:45:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: > Here, unfortunately, David B. goes too far. Yes, I know. It was a joke, though it wasn't a very good joke. > I'm sure that's the only way I could ever beat him--maybe my > best play is better than his most careless and inferior. :) No, no. My best results come from careless and inferior play - that is, when I do not do what I think I ought to do. It's only when I'm trying to do the right thing that I end up doing the wrong one. 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 Apr 11 08:56:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3AMuYH29594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:56:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3AMuRt29587 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:56:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.74.218] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14n73a-0000jG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:56:18 +0100 Message-ID: <009101c0c211$5d44dac0$da4a073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <6d.121746cf.2804a169@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:55:37 +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 Grattan, or Kojak, or both, or possibly neither, wrote: +=+ I think it is patently obvious that if opponent objects to a claim and points to a lead from the wrong hand, the Director deals with the clarification without that lead and anything that hangs on it. He does not accept the objectionable action and try to deal with the claim by allowing an illegality. A hypothetical case: 432 2 None None 5 None None None AKQ 432 None 2 None A 765 None South, declarer in a no trump contract with the lead in his hand, claims the rest because: (a) he believes that the lead is in dummy; (b) he believes that dummy's spades are good. He announces that he will cash three spades, followed by HA. Does he get one trick, or none? If the former, how will you answer the defenders' assertion that they would be better off allowing declarer to follow his statement of claim? 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 Apr 11 10:09:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B09SS01997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:09:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.172]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3B09Jt01992 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:09:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-239.arizona.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.54.239] helo=oemcomputer) by cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 14n8C0-0005Hc-00; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:09:04 +0100 Message-ID: <004501c0c21b$b3e356e0$ef36893e@oemcomputer> From: "James Vickers" To: "Steve Willner" , "alain gottcheiner" , Subject: [BLML] logical alternatives (was: MI from Japan) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:08:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0042_01C0C223.E5EC81E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C0C223.E5EC81E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : IBTD. If, barring the UI, doubling is 50% and bidding is 50%, = albeit >with many possibilities, none of which would be made by more than 20% = of >the player's peers, we shouldn't allow the double. > >An example : AQJxxx >-- >Kx >AQ10xx > >After 1S 2H ...p p > >I guess about 40-50% would double, the other being spread between 3C, = 4C, >3H. The 'suggested' double should not stand. > > >Steve Willner wrote: >> It is only once logical alternatives have been found (>30% under the = =3D >> EBU), the action deemed to have been suggested over and above such = =3D >> alternatives, and damage thereby done to the non-offenders that L12C2 = =3D >> applies. > >This seems to be a common misunderstanding. The question (outside the >ACBL) is not whether there is some one action other than the one taken >that 25-30% of players would choose. Rather, it is whether the action >taken would be chosen by 70-75% of players. Even if no single other >action has high probability, logical alternatives exist. The classic >case is the one cited by Alain: suppose 50% of players would double, >but the other 50% would bid. If double is suggested by UI, it is >illegal, even if no single bid would have much support. (If I have >misunderstood the rules in the RoW, I'm sure someone will correct me.) I like this interpretation (and Alain's example), but it's not = surprising that this is a common misunderstanding. Any TD reading L16 = "cold" could only assume that "logical alternative" refers to each = single action separately, not to the sum of all possible alternative = actions. This is reinforced in the EBU TD's Guide, from which I quote: 16.6 "Where the unauthorised information is conveyed by his partner a = player is required 'not to choose from logical alternative actions one = that could reasonably have been suggested over *another* by the = extraneous information' " and: "We broadly interpret a 'logical alternative' as being a call or play = which three or more in ten of equivalent players could be expected to = make in the particular situation, with all the legal inferences from the = auction and play, but undisturbed by any illicit information." So this is a common misunderstanding for the simple reason that it is = what the Law actually says. I would like to rule the way that you and = Alain and (presumably) most others directors would, but if I adjusted = the score in Alain's example and the offending side asked me what the = legal basis for my ruling was, I would, to my great embarrassment, be = unable to provide an answer.=20 I have been complaining about this discrepancy to anyone who cares to = listen for over ten years, and have neither made much headway in = convincing others, nor have I heard many convincing arguments in return. = I understand that some of the interpretation I have cited may not apply = outside the EBU's jurisdiction, but the Laws themselves apply worldwide. = James Vickers Reading, UK ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C0C223.E5EC81E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
>AG : IBTD.=20 If, barring the UI, doubling is 50% and bidding is 50%, = albeit
>with many=20 possibilities, none of which would be made by more than 20% = of
>the=20 player's peers, we shouldn't allow the double.
>
>An example :=20 AQJxxx
>--
>Kx
>AQ10xx
>
>After 1S 2H ...p p
>
>I guess about 40-50% would double, the other = being=20 spread between 3C, 4C,
>3H. The 'suggested' double should not=20 stand.

>
>
>Steve Willner wrote:
>> It is=20 only once logical alternatives have been found (>30% under the = =3D
>>=20 EBU), the action deemed to have been suggested over and above such = =3D
>>=20 alternatives, and damage thereby done to the non-offenders that L12C2=20 =3D
>> applies.
>
>This seems to be a common=20 misunderstanding.  The question (outside the
>ACBL) is not = whether=20 there is some one action other than the one taken
>that 25-30% of = players=20 would choose.  Rather, it is whether the action
>taken would = be=20 chosen by 70-75% of players.  Even if no single other
>action = has=20 high probability, logical alternatives exist.  The = classic
>case is=20 the one cited by Alain: suppose 50% of players would double,
>but = the=20 other 50% would bid.  If double is suggested by UI, it = is
>illegal,=20 even if no single bid would have much support.  (If I=20 have
>misunderstood the rules in the RoW, I'm sure someone will = correct=20 me.)
 
I like this=20 interpretation (and Alain's example), but it's not surprising that this = is a=20 common misunderstanding. Any TD reading L16 "cold" could only assume = that=20 "logical alternative" refers to each single action separately, not to = the sum of=20 all possible alternative actions. This is reinforced in the EBU TD's = Guide, from=20 which I quote:
 
16.6 "Where the=20 unauthorised information is conveyed by his partner a player is required = 'not to=20 choose from logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have = been=20 suggested over *another* by the extraneous information' = "
and:
"We broadly=20 interpret a 'logical alternative' as being a call or play which three or = more in=20 ten of equivalent players could be expected to make in the particular = situation,=20 with all the legal inferences from the auction and play, but undisturbed = by any=20 illicit information."
 
So this is a common misunderstanding for the simple reason=20 that it is what the Law actually says. I would like to rule the way = that=20 you and Alain and (presumably) most others directors would, but if I = adjusted=20 the score in Alain's example and the offending side asked me what the = legal=20 basis for my ruling was, I would, to my great embarrassment, be unable = to=20 provide an answer.
 
I have been complaining about this discrepancy to anyone who cares = to=20 listen for over ten years, and have neither made much headway in = convincing=20 others, nor have I heard many convincing arguments in return. I = understand that=20 some of the interpretation I have cited may not apply outside the EBU's=20 jurisdiction, but the Laws themselves apply worldwide.
 
James Vickers
Reading, UK
------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C0C223.E5EC81E0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 10:51:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B0pPC03284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:51:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f126.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.126]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3B0pIt03277 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:51:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:51:11 -0700 Received: from 172.181.73.209 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:51:10 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.181.73.209] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:51:10 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Apr 2001 00:51:11.0123 (UTC) FILETIME=[8074EE30:01C0C221] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >it is a question of whether to proceed >as if the revoke that the claimer announced would occur has for >practical purposes actually occurred. And whether or not the law allows you to adjust for irregularities that occur after a claim, if such a beast exists as you assert. You really don't want to allow revokes in a claim without the ability to penalize the revoke. -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 Apr 11 11:07:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B17Eh03796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:07:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3B16qt03765 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:06:53 +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 14n95q-000HZk-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:06:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:47:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a 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 >>From: "David Burn" >>I am not sure I have fully grasped all of this. If the question is about >>a declarer who claims on the basis that he will lead from dummy when he >>isn't in dummy, then, if the defenders wish to contest the claim on the >>basis that the illegal lead from dummy would be to their advantage, they >>should obviously be allowed to do so. After all, if declarer had played >>as he said he would play, the defenders would have the option of >>accepting a lead from the wrong hand. Why should they be denied this >>option because declarer has claimed rather than played? > >Because there's no wording in 68-71 that implies you adjust for play >irregularities occuring in the claim. Irregularities do not occur during a >claim. There is no wording that says we do what you are suggesting either. Personally, if the Laws do not say otherwise, it seems logical to me to do what we always do: believe the claim statement as far as possible. Why ever 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 Wed Apr 11 11:07:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B17EB03797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:07:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3B16pt03764 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:06:53 +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 14n95q-000HZj-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:06:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:45:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104101410.KAA29252@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200104101410.KAA29252@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 Burn" >> The question, really, is this: is a card named by a player in the >> course of a claim a "played" card, that can be treated under Law 61A >> as a "failure to follow suit"? Law 44C4(a) says: >> >> A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as >> the card he proposes to play. > >There is also L68D to consider. How can a player play a card if play >has ceased? > >In spite of that, I thought your final ruling was the same one I would >have made: one trick to the defense if H-K is in East, zero tricks if >in West. The HK was played earlier in the hand. >Ruling as if there was an established revoke, and transferring two >penalty tricks, seems clearly wrong to me. Why? A claim is an attempt to shorten play by saying what would have happened if play had continued. If you believe that declarer would revoke and the revoke would be established if play had continued, how can it be fair to give declarer the benefit of no revoke? What I find strange is that while I am sure there are arguments in favour of the other view, there do not seem to be any produced that are in any way appealing. We have one person who gets the wording of the Law wrong, and plows a lonely furrow averring that claims do not cover the current trick, which is arrant nonsense: we have several people to whom a trick is only a trick if cards are turned over [don't you give a score for tricks after a revoke?] which is clearly meant as a theoretical exercise with no application in the real world. We also have the people who say we may not force declarer to revoke. We are not forcing declarer to do anything: we are believing him when he tells us what he would have done! David B has pointed out that dummy might easily draw attention to the revoke if the hand had been played. Sure he might, though David has always said the proper place for dummy is in the bar buying the next round. Few dummies these days warn partner against revoking. But L70A tells us what to do, and how to resolve doubtful points. It does not seem to me to be a doubtful point whether declarer is going to revoke - why should we call him a liar? But whether his partner would draw it to his attention, or whether he might realise in time to stop himself, are doubtful points. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 11:07:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B17Jp03800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:07:19 +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 f3B16tt03772 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:06:56 +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 14n95v-000HZj-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:06:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:49:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a 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 >>From: David Stevenson >> > I find they are quite comparable. Is there any precedent for >>sticking >> >declarer with an illegal line-of-play during a claim and then adjusting >>the >> >score based on the penalties that would have been assigned had the >> >irregularity occured? If you're going to force a claimer to revoke, you >> >must also be willing to let him try to win two tricks with the same card >>or >> >lead out of turn, and then adjust the score. But you don't. >> >> No, I like to follow the laws as written. I am interpreting L70A: you >>are quoting a case where L70A says the opposite. > >You should be more explicit. I am resolving doubt against claimer. I doubt >he's getting 3 tricks with that illegal line of play, especially since I >can't adjust for the revoke-that-never-happened after the hand is played. Of course you can. > >> > Because the Law offers no authority otherwise. If it does, you'll >>have >> >to cite which laws in order allow you to do so. Though in this example I >> >would consider a losing duck to the queen, resulting in 2 tricks. >> >> That's easy: L70D gives us the authority for my approach. > >Law 70D gives you no authority to assign a penalty for a revoke that didn't >happen. The effect of L70D is that you'll be forced to rule on the claim as >if there had been no claim statement, or at least no part of the claim >statement dealing with the trick of the irregularity and beyond. That is not what L70D says. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 11:07:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B17LD03802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:07:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3B16ut03777 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:06:57 +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 14n95v-000HZi-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:06:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:01:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? References: <200104102019.QAA29794@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200104102019.QAA29794@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: "Kooijman, A." >> My laws say: ....depriving a player of his right to call AT THAT TURN. > >It's not obvious just what those last three words mean. In your >example auction: >N E S W >1NT ... ... p >p p > >East has had a perfectly good chance to call over 1NT and indeed has >used that opportunity to say 'pass'. Of course there has been some >intervening funny business, so one could argue that he hasn't had a >chance to call _directly_ (or "at that turn") over 1NT. > >L34 makes clear that South should get a chance to call, but it isn't >entirely clear whether East should get a chance to call _first_. I >tend to think the language says not, but Ton's view cannot be ignored. > >In practice, it is unlikely to make much difference. If East didn't >want to bid or double at the turn he has already had, why should he >want to do so now? I am getting more and more puzzled. We have an unambiguous Law: we apply it. WTP? >N E S W >1NT ... ... p >p p L34 says When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. The auction reverts to the player who missed his turn. All subsequent passes are cancelled, and the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. Let us apply this Law, and then someone can explain to me what the difficulty is. First, does it apply here? Was a call followed by three passes? Yes, 1NT was followed by p p p. Was one of those passes out of rotation? Yes, West's pass. Did someone lose their right to call at that turn? Yes, South has lost his right to call. So, the passes are cancelled, and the bidding reverts to South. Aha, I know what you are going to say: East lost his turn as well! Ok, well, I suppose it is not 100% unambiguous. But unless you really want to start applying Laws when they are clearly not meant, this is a Law to stop a player not being allowed to call at all, and East was able to call without this Law, but South was not. My understanding is that L34 is only applied to people who lose their right to call completely, and I do not think we should include East. That way madness lies! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 11:07:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B17KG03801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:07:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3B16vt03779 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:06:58 +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 14n95v-000HZk-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:06:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:04:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More on Law 34 References: <200104102128.OAA08137@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200104102128.OAA08137@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes > >I think I've discovered an ambiguity in the Laws: > >North East South West > 1NT pass pass >pass(1) > >(1) out of turn > > >It appears that the conditions stated by Law 34 are met, since a call >has been followed by three passes, one of those passes was out of >rotation, and West has been deprived of a chance to call. If we apply >Law 34, it says that the auction reverts to West, and the auction >proceeds as though there had been no irregularity---with no penalty >for anyone. But is this right? Nobody has accepted the pass out of >turn, so shouldn't L30B1 be applied instead? That is, the auction >reverts to West *and* North is penalized by being required to pass at >his next turn. I think a clarification is needed in the Laws. There is no need for a clarification: you seem to be ignoring the Law to try to cause a problem. You never apply L34 without applying the Pass out of turn Law first: that would be ridiculous. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 11:07:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B17JY03799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:07:19 +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 f3B16tt03773 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:06:56 +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 14n95q-000HZi-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:06:49 +0000 Message-ID: <4hygYiAka606EwUq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:34:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104091957.MAA12112@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 Roger Pewick writes >The claim can only be concerned with future tricks, that is T12 >and 13. Yet again you have stated this, which is totally at variance with the written Law. It is normal and legal for a claim to include the current trick. I suggest you should re-read L68. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 11:11:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B1Ar703945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:10:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3B1Ajt03937 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:10:46 +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 14n99d-000HwK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:10:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:10:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] logical alternatives (was: MI from Japan) References: <004501c0c21b$b3e356e0$ef36893e@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <004501c0c21b$b3e356e0$ef36893e@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f3B1Amt03939 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk James Vickers writes > So this is a common misunderstanding for the simple reason that it > is what the Law actually says. I would like to rule the way that > you and Alain and (presumably) most others directors would, but if > I adjusted the score in Alain's example and the offending side > asked me what the legal basis for my ruling was, I would, to my > great embarrassment, be unable to provide an answer. I do not really understand this. > I have been complaining about this discrepancy to anyone who cares > to listen for over ten years, and have neither made much headway in > convincing others, nor have I heard many convincing arguments in > return. I understand that some of the interpretation I have cited > may not apply outside the EBU's jurisdiction, but the Laws > themselves apply worldwide. Well, I am listening. What discrepancy? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 12:51:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B2okZ27460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:50:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f98.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3B2odt27456 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:50:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:50:31 -0700 Received: from 172.181.73.209 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:50:31 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.181.73.209] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:50:31 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Apr 2001 02:50:31.0792 (UTC) FILETIME=[2C8C4F00:01C0C232] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Todd Zimnoch writes > >You should be more explicit. I am resolving doubt against claimer. I >doubt > >he's getting 3 tricks with that illegal line of play, especially since I > >can't adjust for the revoke-that-never-happened after the hand is played. > > Of course you can. This is proof by assertion. I've asked you before to list the laws in order that allow you to adjust for a claim-made revoke. > >> > Because the Law offers no authority otherwise. If it does, >you'll > >>have > >> >to cite which laws in order allow you to do so. Though in this >example I > >> >would consider a losing duck to the queen, resulting in 2 tricks. > >> > >> That's easy: L70D gives us the authority for my approach. > > > >Law 70D gives you no authority to assign a penalty for a revoke that >didn't > >happen. The effect of L70D is that you'll be forced to rule on the claim >as > >if there had been no claim statement, or at least no part of the claim > >statement dealing with the trick of the irregularity and beyond. > > That is not what L70D says. Sorry, you are right. Claimer does get to attempt to propose a new line of play. As the KH is out already, there is no normal line of play that yields less than 3 tricks. Claimer's new line of play is allowed to stand because L70D cannot nullify it, so claimer does not revoke and gets all 3 tricks. But this is only true because all legal plays lead to getting all 3 tricks, so the situation is still congruent to having made no claim statement. L70D restricts director's ability to be compassionate, but does not authorize director to do anything. So I still don't see why you're relying on it as the source of authority. However, what I said previously would be exactly the effect of 70D. Claimer, not being held to his illegal line of play and unable to suggest a new one, is ruled against as if he made no claim statement. -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 Apr 11 16:56:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B6qtR16759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:52:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3B6qZt16749 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:52:37 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA00120; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:52:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 11 08:52:16 2001 +0200 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 <01K29N9KZV3C005DO3@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:51:59 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2VFGQ47G>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:51:28 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:51:58 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: "'Adam Beneschan'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B803@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: Adam Beneschan [mailto:adam@irvine.com] > Verzonden: dinsdag 10 april 2001 19:38 > Aan: Bridge Laws > CC: adam@irvine.com > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? > > > > Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > What am I missing? > > Question is what to do when the auction goes: > > > > N E S W > > 1NT p > > p p > > > 1)Do we agree that there was a call followed by 3 passes? > > > > 2)Do we agree that one of those passes was OOT? > > > > 3)Do we agree that by this pass OOT east and west yes, sorry for this contribution to the confusion, it should be east and south of course. This is what happens when people start questioning complete obvious cases. But my questions are still there! ton were > deprived from their > > right to call at that turn? > > > > 4)Then why don't we start with east after cancelling the 3 passes? > > 5)Why is it a perfect analysis not to include east and only > to give south > > the right to make a call? > > > > To convince me I would like to get an answer in stead of > just conclusions. > > Before we proceed further, we'll need to know just who passed out of > turn. Your post makes it appear that the POOT was made by Southwest. > Or perhaps by a kibitzer sitting between South and West? Your > questions (3) and (5) just further the confusion: (3) seems to assume > South passed out of turn first, (5) seems to assume West did. > > -- 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 Apr 11 17:04:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B74Of17059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:04:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3B74Dt17051 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:04:14 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA02110; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:04:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 11 09:03:58 2001 +0200 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 <01K29NOJVD0M005CWA@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:04:03 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2VFGQVWW>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:03:32 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:04:02 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: "'Adam Beneschan'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B804@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 Willner wrote: > > > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > > My laws say: ....depriving a player of his right to call > AT THAT TURN. > > > > It's not obvious just what those last three words mean. In your > > example auction: > > N E S W > > 1NT ... ... p > > p p > > > > East has had a perfectly good chance to call over 1NT and indeed has > > used that opportunity to say 'pass'. Of course there has been some > > intervening funny business, so one could argue that he hasn't had a > > chance to call _directly_ (or "at that turn") over 1NT. > > > > L34 makes clear that South should get a chance to call, but it isn't > > entirely clear whether East should get a chance to call _first_. I > > tend to think the language says not, but Ton's view cannot > be ignored. > > > > In practice, it is unlikely to make much difference. If East didn't > > want to bid or double at the turn he has already had, why should he > > want to do so now? > > Perhaps he was willing to let the opponents play 1NT when he thought > he could force them to play there (without giving South a chance to > describe his hand) by passing, but now that the TD has ruled that > South gets a chance to call, East would like to make a nuisance bid to > take some of South's bidding room away. > > This isn't a good reason to have any sympathy for East. It's his own > partner, after all, who screwed things up by passing out of turn; and > if East had known the rules and known that South can't be deprived of > a chance to call, East would have made his nuisance bid anyway, > instead of passing. I don't see any injustice in ruling that the > auction may now go > > N E S W > 1NT ... p p > p > > -- Adam The problem with you guys, Steve , Adam, is that you don't read laws but just want to be pragmatic. That makes lousy TD's and nice debating groups. I feel responsible for producing capable TD's. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 17:24:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B7OSU17598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:24:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3B7OJt17590 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:24:21 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA02263; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:24:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 11 09:24:01 2001 +0200 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 <01K29ODZOQJO005E45@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:23:47 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2VFGQXGA>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:23:16 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:23:43 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] More on Law 34 To: "'Adam Beneschan'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B805@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 think I've discovered an ambiguity in the Laws: > > North East South West > 1NT pass pass > pass(1) > > (1) out of turn > > > It appears that the conditions stated by Law 34 are met, since a call > has been followed by three passes, one of those passes was out of > rotation, and West has been deprived of a chance to call. If we apply > Law 34, it says that the auction reverts to West, and the auction > proceeds as though there had been no irregularity---with no penalty > for anyone. But is this right? Nobody has accepted the pass out of > turn, so shouldn't L30B1 be applied instead? The question is not whether to use L30 or (exclusive) L34. Yes North passed OOT so L30 applies. And only when east accepts this POOT L34 comes in sight. I tried to tell something similar some messages ago, but who reads? This also means that the TD should inform east about the consequences of accepting the POOT, otherwise L82C might apply. ton That is, the auction > reverts to West *and* North is penalized by being required to pass at > his next turn. I think a clarification is needed in the Laws. > > * * * * * > > A (rather less serious) problem: Suppose we do apply L30B1, as I think > we should, and West passes. Now L30B1 says that North must pass when > next it is his turn to call. However, it won't be his turn to call > again until the next board. Does that mean that North is required to > pass on the next board? After all, L30B1 doesn't say "at his next > turn to call on the current hand"; it just says "at his next turn". > And, if the irregularity occurred on the last board of the event, is > the league required to keep track of this and make sure North passes > at his first turn of the first board of the next event he enters? I'm > kidding, of course, but I wonder whether the wording of L30B1 needs to > be clarified to indicate that the penalty applies only if the offender > gets another turn during the same auction period, to prevent obnoxious > BL's (or players with a sick sense of humor like me) from trying to > exploit the possibly ambiguous wording. > I accused you of pragmatism in a previous answer, but I should take that back. I know what it is instead, but politeness tells me not to name 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 Wed Apr 11 17:42:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B7gM118074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:42:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3B7gDt18066 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:42:14 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA22486; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:41:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 11 09:41:08 2001 +0200 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 <01K29OYNIJJA005E4W@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:40:27 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2VFGQYKG>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:39:55 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:40:24 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B806@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 > > Was a call followed by three passes? Yes, 1NT was followed > by p p p. > Was one of those passes out of rotation? Yes, West's pass. > Did someone lose their right to call at that turn? Yes, South has > lost his right to call. > > So, the passes are cancelled, and the bidding reverts to South. > > > Aha, I know what you are going to say: East lost his turn as well! And isn't that true? > Ok, well, I suppose it is not 100% unambiguous. no, no, you are right it is 100% unambiguous. ton But unless > you really > want to start applying Laws when they are clearly not meant, this is a > Law to stop a player not being allowed to call at all, that is your law 34, not wbf's. and > East was able > to call without this Law, but South was not. My understanding is that > L34 is only applied to people who lose their right to call completely, > and I do not think we should include East. And since that is what you think, we just ignore the laws. Nice try by the way, I was going to stop reading after your first 'unambiguous', convinced about your answer, but for some reason continued. ton That way madness lies! (that one is yours! ton) > > -- > David Stevenson -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 17:42:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B7go718087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:42:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3B7ght18080 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:42:44 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA28526; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:42:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 11 09:42:13 2001 +0200 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 <01K29OZY8UW8005DQN@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:41:29 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2VFGQYM3>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:40:58 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:41:28 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] More on Law 34 To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B807@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: David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] > Verzonden: woensdag 11 april 2001 3:04 > Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] More on Law 34 > > > Adam Beneschan writes > > > >I think I've discovered an ambiguity in the Laws: > > > >North East South West > > 1NT pass pass > >pass(1) > > > >(1) out of turn > > > > > >It appears that the conditions stated by Law 34 are met, since a call > >has been followed by three passes, one of those passes was out of > >rotation, and West has been deprived of a chance to call. > If we apply > >Law 34, it says that the auction reverts to West, and the auction > >proceeds as though there had been no irregularity---with no penalty > >for anyone. But is this right? Nobody has accepted the pass out of > >turn, so shouldn't L30B1 be applied instead? That is, the auction > >reverts to West *and* North is penalized by being required to pass at > >his next turn. I think a clarification is needed in the Laws. > > There is no need for a clarification: you seem to be > ignoring the Law > to try to cause a problem. You never apply L34 without applying the > Pass out of turn Law first: that would be ridiculous. Ok, peace again, ton > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on > OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 17:49:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B7nTG18254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:49:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3B7nMt18247 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:49:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f3B7nEc09111 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:49:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:49 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke 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: > A claim is an attempt to shorten play by saying what would have > happened if play had continued. If you believe that declarer would > revoke and the revoke would be established if play had continued, how > can it be fair to give declarer the benefit of no revoke? I don't think it can. What if I believe that, had play continued, the declarer would not actually establish a revoke despite his statement? I assume it would be equally unfair to assume a revoke and that I should base my ruling on the least effective non-revoke line. There are many things that would lead me to rule this way. 1. An immediate correction on realising a heart had been led. 2. Declarer having exposed his hand when making the claim statement if dummy was present with his rights intact. 3. Dummy, with rights intact, convincing me that he knew declarer had the HQ (a heart) and was paying attention. 4. If the declarer (expecting a diamond lead), claimed before, or at approximately the same time as the actual heart lead with "I can ruff a diamond..." 5. The play of the heart king by RHO (admittedly this wouldn't help him win all the tricks). 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 Apr 11 18:06:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B86Sv18673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:06:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3B86Jt18667 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:06:20 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA17469; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:06:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 11 10:06:04 2001 +0200 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 <01K29PU6W4PG005CKW@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:05:52 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2VFGQ5DV>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:05:21 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:05:51 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] logical alternatives (was: MI from Japan) To: "'James Vickers'" , Steve Willner , alain gottcheiner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B80B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : IBTD. If, barring the UI, doubling is 50% and bidding is 50%, albeit >with many possibilities, none of which would be made by more than 20% of >the player's peers, we shouldn't allow the double. > >An example : AQJxxx >-- >Kx >AQ10xx > >After 1S 2H ...p p > >I guess about 40-50% would double, the other being spread between 3C, 4C, >3H. The 'suggested' double should not stand. > > >Steve Willner wrote: >> It is only once logical alternatives have been found (>30% under the = >> EBU), Is this really what the EBU says? I know that the ACBL once defined a logical alternative as a call being considered by peers, and has changed - or is 'improving' (my word) - to 'considered and then made once in a while'. Such an approach seems much more in line with the laws than the one you describes, which is wrong in my opinion. If one call is made 70% of the time, then the logical alternatives add up to 30%, that is how we should handle it. Honestly, I can't believe the EBU says something else. Is there an official answer to give? ton the action deemed to have been suggested over and above such = >> alternatives, and damage thereby done to the non-offenders that L12C2 = >> applies. > >This seems to be a common misunderstanding. The question (outside the >ACBL) is not whether there is some one action other than the one taken >that 25-30% of players would choose. Rather, it is whether the action >taken would be chosen by 70-75% of players. Even if no single other >action has high probability, logical alternatives exist. The classic >case is the one cited by Alain: suppose 50% of players would double, >but the other 50% would bid. If double is suggested by UI, it is >illegal, even if no single bid would have much support. (If I have >misunderstood the rules in the RoW, I'm sure someone will correct me.) I like this interpretation (and Alain's example), but it's not surprising that this is a common misunderstanding. Any TD reading L16 "cold" could only assume that "logical alternative" refers to each single action separately, not to the sum of all possible alternative actions. This is reinforced in the EBU TD's Guide, from which I quote: 16.6 "Where the unauthorised information is conveyed by his partner a player is required 'not to choose from logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over *another* by the extraneous information' " and: "We broadly interpret a 'logical alternative' as being a call or play which three or more in ten of equivalent players could be expected to make in the particular situation, with all the legal inferences from the auction and play, but undisturbed by any illicit information." So this is a common misunderstanding for the simple reason that it is what the Law actually says. I would like to rule the way that you and Alain and (presumably) most others directors would, but if I adjusted the score in Alain's example and the offending side asked me what the legal basis for my ruling was, I would, to my great embarrassment, be unable to provide an answer. I have been complaining about this discrepancy to anyone who cares to listen for over ten years, and have neither made much headway in convincing others, nor have I heard many convincing arguments in return. I understand that some of the interpretation I have cited may not apply outside the EBU's jurisdiction, but the Laws themselves apply worldwide. James Vickers Reading, 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 Apr 11 18:28:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3B8SOR20301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:28:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3B8SFt20263 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:28:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f3B8S8G00198 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:28:08 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:28 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke/What is equity...? 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: bramble@ukonline.co.uk wrote: > >> Why should we specify tricks *at the table*? After trick 4, the > >> defence will make five tricks "on any rational legal line of play" > >> and declarer's trick 5 revoke has reduced this to four tricks. > > > >This is definitely not the case. The defence will *never* make more > >than three tricks. They will subsequently be awarded some tricks as a > >result of the revoke penalty. > > Positively Orwellian! (All tricks are equal but some tricks are more > equal than others) If we're being picky, any penalty under L64A is > achieved by "transferring" to the NOS 1 or 2 tricks won by the OS. There are tricks made in play, and tricks transferred for revoking. They carry equal weight in scoring but they are different beasts. Personally I like to be able make the distinction clear rather than take the more Orwellian approach that constructs a language where dissenting thought is impossible. > L64C does not refer to "tricks" - it is not directly concerned with > them. It charges the director with determining whether the NOS has been > "sufficiently compensated" by the provisions of L64A/B "for the damage > caused" and, if he deems not, "assigning an adjusted score". Indeed. But NOS got more tricks after the transfer than they would have done if there had been no revokes so the TD is perfectly at liberty to determine that NOS were not damaged. > >As to why we should treat this way firstly there are indications that > >was the intent of the lawmakers when the revoke laws were written, > >secondly the words of law 64C imply that the revoke penalty is not > >"part of equity" rather something to be "compared to equity". > > I don't follow this at all, particularly as the word " equity" does not > appear in L64C (apart from in the heading which is not part of the Law). If the word appeared within the law it would more than just "imply" that revoke tricks were not part of equity - it would state it. OK the headings are not part of the laws but I think it is safe to assume that neither are they selected at random. Maybe I should have written "The heading and words of L64C imply..." > Let me try once more: Honestly I do understand your point. I even agree it is a reasonable interpretation of the law. I just don't accept it is the *only* reasonable interpretation. Nor do I consider it desirable that the law admits of such ambiguous interpretations but if we don't recognise that ambiguity is possible it is unlikely that it will ever be resolved. > Immediately prior to the trick 5 revoke we are told that declarer can > make only 10 tricks on any legal line of play. 2 of these tricks will > be transferred in respect of the trick 1 revoke (L64A1),so that he now > destined to be one down in his contract of 3N. Following the trick 5 > revoke he wins 11 tricks less 2 tricks and 3N is now made. Now L64C > specifically includes revokes "not subject to penalty" and declarer has > made, as a direct consequence of the second revoke, a contract which > immediately prior to this revoke was otherwise impossible. It seems > abundantly clear to me that the NOS have been "insufficiently > compensated for the damage caused " by the second revoke and that the TD > should therefore "assign an adjusted score" of 3N-1 under L64C. For > further corroboration we turn to the EBL Commentary on the Laws (EBLCL) > 64.8 which requires the director "to restore as nearly as possible an > equitable result in line with expectations as they were immediately > prior to the revoke". Immediately prior to the second revoke > the NOS expected a plus score! It was indicated that, at the time of writing, Kaplan (who was intimately involved in the process) believed this meant "equity at the point before the first revoke". I am content to believe that was the shared intent of the authors. OK their wording doesn't convey this perfectly but we all acknowledge how difficult it is to write good laws. > I should add that I do not like the concept of 'break a rule' (however > inadvertantly) and 'gain a trick', which I consider should offend > everyone's sense of justice. FortunateIy I believe L64C prevents this > happening. If I thought it didn't, I would be looking, as TD, to award > an adjusted score under L72B1. If I believed that nothing in the Laws > covered the situation, I would consider them deficient. And I, not really liking the automatic penalty for a revoke law, feel that the penalising the first revoke is already a sufficient deterrent against deliberate revoking and have no problem with the concept that "going to be transferred revoke tricks" are never part of equity. 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 Apr 11 20:34:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BAXsE00762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:33:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f8.law14.hotmail.com [64.4.21.8]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BAXat00752 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:33:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:33:27 -0700 Received: from 137.229.8.49 by lw14fd.law14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:33:27 GMT X-Originating-IP: [137.229.8.49] From: "Michael Schmahl" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:33:27 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Apr 2001 10:33:27.0800 (UTC) FILETIME=[D856C780:01C0C272] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >N E S W > >1NT ... ... p > >p p > > I am developing the opinion that L34 is completely useless and should be discarded. Without L34, this case would be easily covered by L17E: E. End of Auction Period The auction period ends when all four players pass or when after three *passes in rotation* have followed any call the opening lead is faced. (Emph. added) In the example auction, it is South to call. There have not been three passes in rotation, so it is not time to make an opening lead. But if South now passes, then there have been three passes in rotation (North, East, South), and it is time for the opening lead. Perhaps L34 could be more unambiguously worded, if it is considered a necessary clarification: When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a player of his right to call. The auction continues until there have been three passes in rotation. -- _________________________________________________________________ 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 Apr 11 20:53:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BAqvt01574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:52:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BAqft01505 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:52:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-167.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.167]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3BAqZn11331 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:52:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD415B1.C3C777E9@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:28:33 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.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: > > > L68D says that 'After any claim or concession, play ceases.' Does it > mean play ceases during a claim? or does it mean after a claim play > ceases? This suggests the question, 'upon the first word of a > statement has there been a claim? Or after the last word of a claim > statement? This has two points of relevance. One is marking the > point of time when there has been a claim. The other is marking the > point of time after which embellishments are extraneous to the claim > statement. > You are splitting hairs, Roger, when you need a claim statement you must consider the whole of this statement as "one point in time". The way the story was told, the claimer uttered one sentence, during which he spoke about three tricks. I consider that one claim statement, one claim, and one moment after which play stops. If instead the player has issued two separate sentences, then the ruling might be different, but I do not believe this is very interesting in this debate. > Assertions have been made that claims consisting of revokes must not > force a line of play that includes a revoke. I feel certain that that > is the appropriate view. However, some of the assertions made in this > thread have been that the claim included a revoke. This was not the > case. The claim can only be concerned with future tricks, that is T12 > and 13. The revoke, if any, occurred at T11 through application of > L45C4a because the statement about ruffing T11 was made during the > claim statement but before declarer had claimed. An investigation of > the facts established that the repudiation the T11 ruff- and replaced > it with the play of the HA at T11 was not subsequent to the claim > statement but part of it. > It seems very harsh to split one sentence into two. The definition of claim includes that there must be a statement about tricks after the current one, but that does not mean that the part of the statement about the current one is not in itself part of the claim statement. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 20:53:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BAr1N01598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BAqkt01532 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:52:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-167.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.167]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3BAqfn11435 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:52:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD416A0.CCA49C29@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:32:32 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <005b01c0c20d$88ed7280$da4a073e@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David has picked up on the same error that I commented on: David Burn wrote: > > Roger wrote: > > > The claim can only be concerned with future tricks, that is T12 > > and 13. The revoke, if any, occurred at T11 through application of > > L45C4a because the statement about ruffing T11 was made during the > > claim statement but before declarer had claimed. An investigation of > > the facts established that the repudiation the T11 ruff- and replaced > > it with the play of the HA at T11 was not subsequent to the claim > > statement but part of it. > > As DWS has pointed out elsewhere (and, mirabile dictu, I continue to > agree with him), a claim is not concerned "only" with future tricks. > Certainly, for a statement to be a claim, it must contain some element > that refers to future tricks; but it is not the case that anything said > about the current trick does not constitute part of the claim. A claim > may refer - indeed, very often does refer - to both the current trick > and future tricks; anything said about the current trick is just as much > part of the claim as anything said about future tricks. > So you agree, David, that this is a claim, not necessarily a revoke ? In that case, I think we may cease the discussion, since it is very well known what you think about claims. I am very happy to see that you are continually harsh on claims. However, that does not solve the problem that I have with other posters, notably DWS, who are not as burnianly harsh on all claims but who seem to be ruling against this claimer anyway. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 20:58:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BArq601780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:52 +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 f3BArAt01652 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-167.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.167]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3BAr6n11843 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:53:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD41B3D.69AE8DF6@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:52:13 +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] claiming a 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: > > > Personally, if the Laws do not say otherwise, it seems logical to me > to do what we always do: believe the claim statement as far as possible. > Why ever not? > ehm - strange claim anyone ? We believe the claim statement only up to the point where it breaks down. Declarer is not going to revoke, not even when he says he will. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 21:13:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BArnd01771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:49 +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 f3BAr8t01642 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-167.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.167]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3BAr5n11814 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:53:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD41AE9.57BD3B5B@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:50:49 +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] claiming a revoke 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: > > > Because there's no wording in 68-71 that implies you adjust for play > irregularities occuring in the claim. Irregularities do not occur during a > claim. > I do not intend to add to the confusion of who is arguing what side, but I wold like to point out an error in Todd's remark. Irregularities CAN occur during a claim. If the claimer had, for some reason, no heart in his hand (as when dropped on the floor), then it does become "normal" for him to play a trump on the heart trick - thus inactual fact revoking. But I do not believe this is the case here, and so I agree with Todd "there can be no revoking in this claim". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 21:28:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BAreG01744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BAr5t01619 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-167.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.167]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3BAqwn11695 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:53:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD41813.84122FE@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:38:43 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@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: > > > What we appear to be debating is this: If a player makes a statement > to the effect that they will revoke on the next trick, does that make > it "'normal'" rather than "irrational" for them to actually do so? > As long as we understand that this is the actual debate, then we can agree. The ruling should not focus on whether or not claimer has revoked, he hasn't. If you want to argue that it would be merely "inferior", not "irrational" to revoke, then by all means do. I myself would favor an interpretation by which revoking is always irrational, except in those circumstances where it involves hidden cards or such. The fact that declarer has stated a line which includes a revoke can be an indication, but never a proof, that declarer is considering revoking. Myself, I prefer to believe that this declarer has claimed without looking what the card was that was played. But such things are for the TD to determine. > Or does it depend on "the class of player involved"? > Of course it does. But no "class of player" actually revokes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 21:39:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BArpW01778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BArCt01661 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-167.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.167]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3BAr8n11854 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:53:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD41D40.B4861C59@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:00:48 +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] Law 34 or not? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B800@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > > > perfect analysis. This is indeed what the laws dictate. > > Strange but true. > > > > > Maybe the Law should say "The auction reverts to the player > > whose turn > > > it was to call when the first pass out of rotation occurred", but it > > > doesn't. > > > > > > > And it should - Grattan ! > > What am I missing? > Question is what to do when the auction goes: > > N E S W > 1NT p > p p > > 1)Do we agree that there was a call followed by 3 passes? > yes > 2)Do we agree that one of those passes was OOT? > yes > 3)Do we agree that by this pass OOT east and west were deprived from their > right to call at that turn? > no - east did call - so he was not deprived. Only west was deprived. the auction, by L34, returns to West. If west, north, and east now pass, south has had his chance (in the first round - ok). > 4)Then why don't we start with east after cancelling the 3 passes? because L34 says we go to "the player who ..." (sorry, no english text available - lost my book in Sorrento) > 5)Why is it a perfect analysis not to include east and only to give south > the right to make a call? > > To convince me I would like to get an answer in stead of just conclusions. > I don't think the laws are well written here, but I do believe this is what they say. > ton -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 21:43:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BArg401752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BAr7t01632 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-167.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.167]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3BAr3n11780 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:53:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD41A1A.CE4F6EB0@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:47:22 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104101410.KAA29252@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > We also have the people who say we may not force declarer to revoke. No comment on all the other people - this is me. > We are not forcing declarer to do anything: we are believing him when he > tells us what he would have done! > David, as the "strange claim" has clearly shown, a claim statement is a clarification - not a statement of how play must necessarily proceed. If you choose to believe that this player will (or even "may") revoke, if in full possesion of all his senses including the one of recognizing a heart for a heart and not a diamond, then you are allowed to rule this claim as two tricks for the defence. But if you want to rule this claim as a revoke because claimer has said he will revoke, then you are wrong. You must rule this claim as any other. IMHO, this claim is correct. Others have said it - if he had said nothing, you would give him 3 tricks. Then why not here. Do you really believe in actual play this fellow will revoke ? You have got to be kidding. Don't you realize what went on in the mind of this man ? He knows he has three tricks - regardless of the return - and so he claims. He trips over his tongue in the claim statement, recounting one line of play rather than another one. But nowhere does he show that he does not know how bridge is played. A line containing a revoke is clearly an irrational one - especially in England ! > David B has pointed out that dummy might easily draw attention to the > revoke if the hand had been played. Sure he might, though David has > always said the proper place for dummy is in the bar buying the next > round. Few dummies these days warn partner against revoking. But L70A > tells us what to do, and how to resolve doubtful points. It does not > seem to me to be a doubtful point whether declarer is going to revoke - > why should we call him a liar? But whether his partner would draw it to > his attention, or whether he might realise in time to stop himself, are > doubtful points. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 21:58:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BAruR01789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BArEt01673 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:53:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-167.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.167]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3BArAn11862 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:53:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD41DF3.F197EEFD@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:03:47 +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] Law 34 or not? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B801@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Although South and East were both skipped by the POOT, East made a > > > call later, and thus I don't consider him to have been > > deprived of his > > > right to call. > > My laws say: ....depriving a player of his right to call AT THAT TURN. > > ton > L34 goes on to award the right to call to "THE player who missed out", with a definite article - meaning the one who did not call, and there is usually only one of those. If you would want to auction to revert to the first one deprived of calling in the original auction, you should have said so. Of course that does not solve the following funny auction : N E S W 1NT pass pass pass but since none of those calls have been acceptedn, there is no problem. > The text continues: > > > > > > > The auction reverts to the player who missed his turn. > > > > > > and the phrase "the player who missed his turn" appears to > > me to refer > > > to the player referred to in the previous sentence, who was deprived > > > of the right to call---i.e. South. > > > > > > Which of course brings us to the problem Scott pointed > > out---if, after > > > the TD rules that the auction reverts to South, South, > > West, and North > > > all pass, then East hasn't had a chance to call, so do we apply L34 > > > again? I don't think so. If we rule that the auction is > > to revert to > > > South (as I read the Law), then the following auction is legal: > > > > > > North East South West > > > 1NT pass pass > > > pass > > > > > > and there are no passes "out of turn", and therefore L34 doesn't > > > apply. I know, it looks funny, but that's what the Law > > seems to say. > > > > > > > perfect analysis. This is indeed what the laws dictate. > > Strange but true. > > > > > Maybe the Law should say "The auction reverts to the player > > whose turn > > > it was to call when the first pass out of rotation occurred", but it > > > doesn't. > > > > > > > And it should - Grattan ! > > > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > -- > > ============================================================== > > ========== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at > > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 22:04:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BC4Gr08011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:04:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BC46t07961 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:04:08 +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 OAA14959; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:00:13 +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 OAA24728; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:03:30 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010411140652.00826100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:06:52 +0200 To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B1 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 11:52 9/04/01 -0400, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, > >I would like your help to make sure I correctly read Law 25B1. > >In cases above, let suppose Law 25A no more applies. >N changes his 1S call to 2D and E Pass (before or >after the attention was drawn to the irregularity). > >1) N E > 1S changed to 2D (TD!) P (after TD gives his ruling) > > First sentence of LB1 clearly applies (The substituted call > may be accepted by offender's LHO). No more penalty. AG : correct >2) N E > 1S changed to 2D (TD!) P (before TD comes to table) > > The attention was drawn to the irregularity but E Pass > before waiting for the TD ruling. Law 9B2 applies. > Must the Pass now stand, making the 2D de facto accepted > without penalty? > Does the Pass be cancelled.... and then ??? AG : jurisprudence says that, in cases where a player may accept or not the last (incorrect) action by the opponents, any action taken by him without calling the TD, be it because the infraction was not noticed, or because he didn't care, constitutes tacit acceptance of said action. The most classical case being a pass over an insufficient bid. This covers the present case. UI may still be a factor, however. For example, if N recounted his points, found only 9, and opened 2D Multi in lieu of 1S; His partner is not allowed to know he holds spades. >3) N E > 1S changed to 2D P (before TD is called) > > E called before attention was drawn to the irregularity. > TD must try to know if LHO intended to call on 1S or 2D. AG : really ? I'd say 2D, the corrected bid, is accepted, and thus is the bid. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 22:06:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BC64c08556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:06:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BC5jt08487 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:05:46 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA17261; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:05:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 11 14:05:18 2001 +0200 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 <01K29Y80HIVA005DBX@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:05:18 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2VFGRLMW>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:04:46 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:05:16 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B812@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 > > Question is what to do when the auction goes: > > > > N E S W > > 1NT p > > p p > > > > 1)Do we agree that there was a call followed by 3 passes? > > > > yes > > > 2)Do we agree that one of those passes was OOT? > > > > yes > > > 3)Do we agree that by this pass OOT east and west ( I meant south) > > were deprived from their > > right to call at that turn? > > > > no - east did call - so he was not deprived. AT THAT TURN , Herman; AT THAT TURN !!!!!! Don't tell me you are trying to convince BLML without even knowing what the laws really say, not having a textbook? But it doesn't help, since I know that the Dutch translation is clear too. > > > > I don't think the laws are well written here, but I do > believe this is what they say. I still meet people who say that they believe that A=B does mean that A is not B if they don't want it to be so. Then it is better to close the discussion. 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 Apr 11 22:10:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BCA6G09799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:10:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BC9lt09682 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:09:48 +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 OAA16618; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:06:02 +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 OAA29833; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:09:19 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010411141241.008267b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:12:41 +0200 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L63 and L69 In-Reply-To: <004b01c0c20c$20f07700$da4a073e@pbncomputer> 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 f3BC9st09726 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 23:18 10/04/01 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Jan-Peter wrote: > >> And if you fail as a TD you might like to become a railway >> switchman. In German: >> >> Hauptreichseisenbahnschienenknotenpunkthinundherbeweger > >Better still, become the captain of a steam boat on the Danube. When you >die, your widow and orphans will, in order to receive your pension, need >to fill out a form known as a: > >Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitanswitenundwaisenrentenempfangsb >eschedigungsformular. AG : is that the same boat that was at some time used by the Viervaldstätterseeschiffahrtgesellschaft ? Well, did anybody found this **** Hungarian word back ? 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 Apr 11 23:40:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BDcPO17411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:38:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r14.mx.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BDcFt17403 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:38:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 7.90.12db6fff (4538) for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:37:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <90.12db6fff.2805b836@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:37:58 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_90.12db6fff.2805b836_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_90.12db6fff.2805b836_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/01 9:09:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.com writes: > . > > So, the passes are cancelled, and the bidding reverts to South. > > > Aha, I know what you are going to say: East lost his turn as well! > > +=+ I think 75% of what I am reading in this thread is totally barmy. People are not reading the law and not thinking. South has not lost a turn to call; he has never had a turn yet. It is East who has lost a turn; South does not get a turn until East has called in rotation after the 1NT. Everything after 1NT is cancelled, the Auction reverts to East and continues from there. The passes by North and East are nullified by what has gone before, and sensibly so since immediate action over the 1NT by East may have different connotations from delayed action. (Kojak reminds me that East's actual pass is at the following turn.) This law takes no account of whether it is South or West who has called out of turn, and the fact that it was West does not abrogate his side's rights. There is, however, a danger here that there are players who, as West, would want to indicate to East that a call other than 'Pass' could create perils; on rare occasions Law 84E may have its day. (Kojak observes that West's Pass is UI for East.) Not altogether 'absent', ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --part1_90.12db6fff.2805b836_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/01 9:09:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bridge@blakjak.com writes:


.

 So, the passes are cancelled, and the bidding reverts to South.


 Aha, I know what you are going to say: East lost his turn as well!

 

    +=+ I think 75% of what I am reading in this thread is totally barmy.
People are not reading the law and not thinking. South has not lost a turn to
call; he has never had a turn yet. It is East who has lost a turn; South does
not get a turn until East has called in rotation after the 1NT. Everything
after 1NT is cancelled, the Auction reverts to East and continues from there.
The passes by North and East are nullified by what has gone before, and
sensibly so since immediate action over the 1NT by East may have different
connotations from delayed action. (Kojak reminds me that East's actual pass
is at the following turn.) This law takes no account of whether it is South
or West who has called out of turn, and the fact that it was West does not
abrogate his side's rights. There is, however, a danger here that there are
players who, as West, would want to indicate to East that a call other than
'Pass' could create perils; on rare occasions Law 84E may have its day.
(Kojak observes that West's Pass is UI for East.)  
               Not altogether 'absent',    ~ Grattan ~      +=+
--part1_90.12db6fff.2805b836_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 11 23:50:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BDohZ17750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:50:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BDoZt17743 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:50:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-62.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.62]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3BDoQA24910 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:50:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD43CF5.2B8EB022@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:16:05 +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] Double revoke/What is equity...? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > > Indeed. But NOS got more tricks after the transfer than they would have > done if there had been no revokes so the TD is perfectly at liberty to > determine that NOS were not damaged. > Well, what if the first "fault" of the OS is a stupid play? Are you then also going to say - "although your revoke gained you three tricks, I am not going to give the third one back via L64C, because declarer was never going to make so many tricks starting from scratch"? You're advocating a L64C return to equity at the start of play why not at the start of the deal and determine that 60% is sufficient compensation for all revokes. I know that is silly, but it is the logical conclusion of your point of view, Tim. > > Honestly I do understand your point. I even agree it is a reasonable > interpretation of the law. I just don't accept it is the *only* > reasonable interpretation. Nor do I consider it desirable that the law > admits of such ambiguous interpretations but if we don't recognise that > ambiguity is possible it is unlikely that it will ever be resolved. > This does not make sense Tim. You seem to be saying that our interpretation makes sense, but that yours does also, and since this cannot be a good thing, your interpretation must be right. Sorry for oversimplifying your position, and I know you don't mean it like that, but your argumentation does not make sense. Yes, there are two possible interpretations, but that can only mean one thing : one of us has the interpretation that the Lawmakers did not intend. Now that can have two reasons. Either the text is not well written, and both interpretations are possible, one being the intended one, or the text is well written, and only one interpretation is correct. To all intents and purposes, it does not really matter which one of these two cases is the truth. I believe the text is clear, but if you want to persist that your interpretation also follows the letter of the text, then I shall not continue to argue against you. But you cannot refute this : by putting L64C into the Lawbook, the lawmakers had the intention of preventing that anyone could gain from a revoke, even after application of the mechanic penalties. Do you really not see that OS benefited more from their second revoke than you are giving back ? > > It was indicated that, at the time of writing, Kaplan (who was intimately > involved in the process) believed this meant "equity at the point before > the first revoke". I am content to believe that was the shared intent of > the authors. OK their wording doesn't convey this perfectly but we all > acknowledge how difficult it is to write good laws. > We shall never know what Kaplan thought about a convoluted case such as the one that started this thread. So perhaps we should stop quoting Kaplan. > > And I, not really liking the automatic penalty for a revoke law, feel that > the penalising the first revoke is already a sufficient deterrent against > deliberate revoking and have no problem with the concept that "going to be > transferred revoke tricks" are never part of equity. > Well, you don't seem to be putting a deterrent onto the second revoke. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 00:18:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BEI4o18393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:18:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BEHut18389 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:17:58 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA07018; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:17:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 11 16:17:43 2001 +0200 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 <01K2A2T7KF0Q005E9L@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:16:55 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2VFGR4JN>; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:16:23 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:16:52 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B813@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: Schoderb@aol.com [mailto:Schoderb@aol.com] Verzonden: woensdag 11 april 2001 15:38 Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? In a message dated 4/10/01 9:09:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.com writes: . So, the passes are cancelled, and the bidding reverts to South. Aha, I know what you are going to say: East lost his turn as well! +=+ I think 75% of what I am reading in this thread is totally barmy. Did I write a quarter of it? sorry, sorry, sorry. no name People are not reading the law and not thinking. South has not lost a turn to Not altogether 'absent', ~ 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 Apr 12 00:29:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BET6d21466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:29:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BESxt21434 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:29:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 5.8e.13dab13a (4538); Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:28:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <8e.13dab13a.2805c418@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:28:40 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8e.13dab13a.2805c418_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_8e.13dab13a.2805c418_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 7:40:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > +=+ At a subsequent turn. We are not asked to judge the law, only to apply it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --part1_8e.13dab13a.2805c418_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 7:40:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hermandw@village.uunet.be writes:


no - east did call


+=+ At a subsequent turn.   
       
      We are not asked to judge the law, only to apply it.
                                                              ~ Grattan ~ +=+
--part1_8e.13dab13a.2805c418_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 Apr 12 01:39:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BFcoh25866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:38:50 +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 f3BFcft25855 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:38:42 +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 IAA26794; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:38:35 -0700 Message-Id: <200104111538.IAA26794@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] More on Law 34 In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:04:19 BST." Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:38:34 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes > > > >I think I've discovered an ambiguity in the Laws: > > > >North East South West > > 1NT pass pass > >pass(1) > > > >(1) out of turn > > > > > >It appears that the conditions stated by Law 34 are met, since a call > >has been followed by three passes, one of those passes was out of > >rotation, and West has been deprived of a chance to call. If we apply > >Law 34, it says that the auction reverts to West, and the auction > >proceeds as though there had been no irregularity---with no penalty > >for anyone. But is this right? Nobody has accepted the pass out of > >turn, so shouldn't L30B1 be applied instead? That is, the auction > >reverts to West *and* North is penalized by being required to pass at > >his next turn. I think a clarification is needed in the Laws. > > There is no need for a clarification: you seem to be ignoring the Law > to try to cause a problem. You never apply L34 without applying the > Pass out of turn Law first: that would be ridiculous. Uh, what Law am I ignoring? I've already mentioned Law 34 and 30B1, so I'm obviously not ignoring those. Is there some other Law other than those two that I *am* ignoring, that applies here to tell us that L30 takes precedence over L34? I also think it's correct to apply L30B1 first; but my thinking is that a TD called to rule on this situation could look in the Law book, see that L30B1 applies, see that L34 also applies, notice that the two lead to different results, and be mystified about what to do. Those of us who discuss the Laws frequently can pretty much guess "what they meant to say", but I don't see anything in the text of the Laws that would make the opposite interpretation "ridiculous" for a TD without the privileged knowledge that we here have. If you see something there that I don't see, could you point me to it? Ton wrote: > The question is not whether to use L30 or (exclusive) L34. Yes North > passed OOT so L30 applies. And only when east accepts this POOT L34 > comes in sight. But L34 doesn't say that the three passes have to be accepted; L34 says it applies when a call has been followed by three passes and one was out of rotation, without saying anything about whether the passes have to be accepted. Do you have a basis in the Laws for saying that "only when East accepts this POOT L34 comes in sight"? Or is the comment grounded in a WBFLC interpretation or something like that? Or is the statement based on thinking such as "well, it's obvious to me that that's what they meant"? > I tried to tell something similar some messages ago, but who reads? Sorry, I don't remember this. Unfortunately, I can't follow every thread in BLML. -- 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 Apr 12 02:07:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BG6t427079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:06:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.25]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BG6kt27066 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:06:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive40s.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.28]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA20854 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:06:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002701c0c2a1$bd1afe80$1c10f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: References: <200104101410.KAA29252@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:08:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 may be so in England or in very high level play. In a typical club game or sectional here is would be most unusual for dummy NOT to protect. Dummy almost always performs his functions rather than goes gallivanting off in search of fuel to poison his intellect. This may be related to our zonal option of allowing "No spades partner" to defenders as well. Players form the habit of always asking, and follow this as dummy as well. As to the case, it is so obvious that declarer has all three tricks, and would be awarded them by a sane director in the absence of any claim statement, that it seems to strain at gnats to penalise him for claiming for a revoke that has not occured yet and were it to occur would almost certainly not become established. The claim statement breaks down when it becomes impossible to follow. That occurs at the point where declarer says he will ruff a diamond...there is no diamond to ruff. It now behooves us to ascertain if there is any rational line of play by which the opponents may win a trick. If the king of hearts remains out, one might make a case that it is merely careless or inferior for declarer to play a low heart from dummy, thinking that he is going to ruff this trick. His bad statement alone perhaps should not be enough to wake him up, though it is highly likely that he will notice the heart led, exposed upon the table before he actually plays from dummy. If the queen of hearts is a winner, he takes all three tricks with no argument. The case with the kh with east causes some question: if a claim statement to be completely disregarded when it is patently impossible to follow it...or can it be used of evidence of declarer's intent, and he be allowed to ATTEMPT to follow it until such time as he must be forced to recognise its impossibility. I find it very disturbing that making no statement gives declarer a beter result than making a poor one. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" Few dummies these days warn partner against revoking. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 02:16:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BGGZm27556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:16:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com (imo-m10.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BGGOt27542 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:16:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from AlanLeBendig@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id p.26.13d680cd (4470); Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:16:08 -0400 (EDT) From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com Message-ID: <26.13d680cd.2805dd48@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:16:08 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: Schoderb@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_26.13d680cd.2805dd48_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_26.13d680cd.2805dd48_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/01 10:50:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Schoderb@aol.com writes: > By the way, because Kojak deletes 99% of blml emails I am unsure, but > think I got a whiff that someone had said that a revoke is not an > illegality. > If so, the writer did not have a grasp of the law; a revoke is a violation > of > I wrote that it was not "illegal" to revoke. And I specifically used the quotation marks for what I thought was a very good reason! Of course I know it is not legal to revoke - but someone had put forth that this was not a valid claim because it contained a statement that the declarer was about to revoke and we would not allow the claim BECAUSE it is illegal to revoke. I totally disagree. We would never permit a claim that entailed leading from the wrong hand because doing so is clearly prohibited. But revoking is not prohibited in the same sense. We have a set penalty for dealing with the revoke - but it is not illegal in the sense that we would ever try to stop a declarer from doing it! I think there is a clear distinction there and therefore I find the claim to be quite valid even though it includes a clear "intent" to revoke. And that is why I see Herman's arguments as invalid here. I do understand what you are saying, Herman. But I believe that this declarer did not have a slip of the tongue. I believe he saw a diamond and was about to ruff it, as he said. It has been suggested that this would be irrational and therefore we would not allow it. But how could we ever say it is irrational if the declarer's mind is somewhere else? I have made more than one irrational bid and there was no way to stop it from happening. Sometimes our mind takes a vacation and we can't stop that. When that has happened, I firmly believe that we must pay for that. And I think our Laws clearly require that we pay for these slips of the mind. I have no reason to believe that declarer's mind was going to return by the time this trick got to him. But I am certain that he was going to play low from dummy - therefore I am comfortable in giving the defense one trick IF the KH is located on his right. I would not be at all upset if one of my directors ruled that a revoke has ocurred. I actually think I may prefer that. And I think that David Bs explanation of "why" mirrors my thinking here. Alan LeBendig --part1_26.13d680cd.2805dd48_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/10/01 10:50:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Schoderb@aol.com writes:


By the way, because Kojak deletes 99% of blml emails I am unsure, but
think I got a whiff that someone had said that a revoke is not an
illegality.
If so, the writer did not have a grasp of the law; a revoke is a violation
of
law, and actions that violate the law are illegal.


I wrote that it was not "illegal" to revoke.  And I specifically used the
quotation marks for what I thought was a very good reason!  Of course I know
it is not legal to revoke - but someone had put forth that this was not a
valid claim because it contained a statement that the declarer was about to
revoke and we would not allow the claim BECAUSE it is illegal to revoke.  I
totally disagree.  We would never permit a claim that entailed leading from
the wrong hand because doing so is clearly prohibited.  But revoking is not
prohibited in the same sense.  We have a set penalty for dealing with the
revoke - but it is not illegal in the sense that we would ever try to stop a
declarer from doing it!  I think there is a clear distinction there and
therefore I find the claim to be quite valid even though it includes a clear
"intent" to revoke.  

And that is why I see Herman's arguments as invalid here.    I do understand
what you are saying, Herman.  But I believe that this declarer did not have a
slip of the tongue.  I believe he saw a diamond and was about to ruff it, as
he said.  It has been suggested that this would be irrational and therefore
we would not allow it.  But how could we ever say it is irrational if the
declarer's mind is somewhere else?  I have made more than one irrational bid
and there was no way to stop it from happening.  Sometimes our mind takes a
vacation and we can't stop that.  When that has happened, I firmly believe
that we must pay for that.  And I think our Laws clearly require that we pay
for these slips of the mind.   I have no reason to believe that declarer's
mind was going to return by the time this trick got to him.  But I am certain
that he was going to play low from dummy - therefore I am comfortable in
giving the defense one trick IF the KH is located on his right.  I would not
be at all upset if one of my directors ruled that a revoke has ocurred.  I
actually think I may prefer that.  And I think that David Bs explanation of
"why" mirrors my thinking here.

Alan LeBendig

--part1_26.13d680cd.2805dd48_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 Apr 12 02:20:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BGKH927717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:20:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BGK6t27713 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:20:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id p.48.1420951c (4069); Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:19:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <48.1420951c.2805de24@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:19:48 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: AlanLeBendig@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_48.1420951c.2805de24_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_48.1420951c.2805de24_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 12:16:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, AlanLeBendig writes: > Schoderb@aol.com writes: > > > +=+ Not Kojak, Grattan Endicott chez Schoder. +=+ --part1_48.1420951c.2805de24_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 12:16:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, AlanLeBendig
writes:


Schoderb@aol.com writes:




+=+ Not Kojak, Grattan Endicott chez Schoder. +=+
--part1_48.1420951c.2805de24_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 Apr 12 02:25:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BGOtB27894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:24:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com (imo-m10.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BGOit27877 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:24:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 5.97.13e7f3d2 (4069); Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:24:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <97.13e7f3d2.2805df3b@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:24:27 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, Schoderb@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_97.13e7f3d2.2805df3b_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_97.13e7f3d2.2805df3b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 10:19:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL writes: > ! > > > > > +=+ I think 75% of what I am reading in this thread is totally barmy. > > > Did I write a quarter of it? > > sorry, sorry, sorry. > > no name > > > > +=+ No. Kojak deletes messages from all but a few names automatically. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --part1_97.13e7f3d2.2805df3b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 10:19:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL writes:


!




   +=+ I think 75% of what I am reading in this thread is totally barmy.  


Did I write a quarter of it?

sorry, sorry, sorry.

no name




+=+ No.  Kojak deletes messages from all but a few names automatically.       
      
                                                     ~ Grattan ~             
               +=+
--part1_97.13e7f3d2.2805df3b_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 Apr 12 02:25:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BGOtW27893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:24:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BGOht27874 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:24:44 +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 LAA00845 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:26:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010411112334.007fb7e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:23:34 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: <3AD41813.84122FE@village.uunet.be> References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@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 I want to focus on two key points here, in hope that we can at least arrive at agreement on one of them! Please let me know if you think my interpretations of law are incorrect! At 10:38 AM 4/11/2001 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >> What we appear to be debating is this: If a player makes a statement >> to the effect that they will revoke on the next trick, does that make >> it "'normal'" rather than "irrational" for them to actually do so? >> > >As long as we understand that this is the actual debate, >then we can agree. The ruling should not focus on whether >or not claimer has revoked, he hasn't. I totally disagree. The question of whether a revoke is irrational or not is irrelevant to this case. I think revokes are irrational, and yet I rule against this declarer [subject to a caveat later]. Now for my two points: a) Some on this thread have spoken as though a player in certain circumstances might lose the right to make an amended claim statement. IT IS NEVER, EVER, TO A PLAYER'S ADVANTAGE TO MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT. If the amended claim statement gives claimer more tricks than the worst normal line, then the TD must, by L70c, ignore it. If the amended statement is _worse_ than the worst normal line of play, declarer may get stuck with it. Ergo, having your claim ruled as if you made no statement of clarification is always as good as or better than having your claim ruled upon with an original, rejected claim statement and a later amendment. b) The question of whether a play is normal or irrational applies only to _alternative lines of play imagined by the TD_, never to the original claim statement or to an amended claim statement. Hence, even if revokes are irrational, we still allow them if they are part of the original claim statement or an amended claim statement. Consider the following, non-revoke case: Contract: 7NT Lead in South. All non-spades have been played, with declarer taking all 10 tricks. S AQ2 S J43 S T65 S K87 Declarer claims, saying "I will lead my King, overtaking it in dummy with the Ace, and play the Queen and two." This line of play is, IMHO, patently irrational. It doesn't matter. The opponents will object that the given line of play yields only two tricks, not three. Do you, as TD's, award declarer three tricks on the grounds that his play is irrational? I do not--I say that we follow his original claim statement until it breaks down, even if it is irrational. The claim statement breaks down at trick 13, when defenders win the trick. Down 1. And I'm _nice_ to claimers. Ergo, an irrational play can be held against claimer if it is part of his original claim statement. [And, depending on how you read the law, possibly if it is part of an amended claim statement.] >If you want to argue that it would be merely "inferior", not >"irrational" to revoke, then by all means do. I do not. If we argue that, then when determining the result of a disputed claim the TD must imagine possible lines of play not stated by declarer that include revokes, and I regard this as patently absurd. Revokes are irrational. It's just that I don't think that fact is relevant to this case. >I myself would favor an interpretation by which revoking is >always irrational, except in those circumstances where it >involves hidden cards or such. Agreed. >The fact that declarer has stated a line which includes a >revoke can be an indication, but never a proof, that >declarer is considering revoking. > >Myself, I prefer to believe that this declarer has claimed >without looking what the card was that was played. > >But such things are for the TD to determine. Here I agree, and this was my caveat. If the TD decides that this player _wouldn't really have revoked had the hand been played out_, that is, if he rules that the player would have realized that his claim statement had broken down immediately after playing the first card, then he can rule differently. I can imagine giving such a ruling in some cases. The 'lead from the wrong hand' cases, I think, are much less likely to be ruled this way--surely that mistake wouldn't be caught until too late. >Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 02:37:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BGbL628317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:37:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BGbCt28306 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:37:13 +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 LAA02986 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:32:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010411112918.007ede70@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:29:18 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: <200104102056.QAA29890@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 04:56 PM 4/10/2001 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Grant Sterling >> But I do not think it is obvious that, where declarer >> has specified a line of play that involves an immediate irregularity, and >> that irregularity benefits the defense, we must dissalow the irregularity. > >It occurs to me that even if you allow the revoke as part of the claim, >you certainly cannot assess penalty tricks: L64B3. (Of course that >assumes claimer has properly faced his cards as part of the claim.) Clever--yes, I might accept this ruling. OTOH, it will not help with the 'lead from the wrong hand' problems. Will you grant that an irregularity can become part of a claim in those cases? Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 02:45:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BGiU628670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:44:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BGiMt28660 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:44:22 +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 LAA08012 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:46:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010411114321.007f0100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:43:21 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: <006301c0c20e$dad07880$da4a073e@pbncomputer> References: <200104101410.KAA29252@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:37 PM 4/10/2001 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Steve wrote: > >> > From: "David Burn" >> > The question, really, is this: is a card named by a player in the >> > course of a claim a "played" card, that can be treated under Law 61A >> > as a "failure to follow suit"? Law 44C4(a) says: >> > >> > A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it >as >> > the card he proposes to play. >> >> There is also L68D to consider. How can a player play a card if play >> has ceased? > >He cannot, obviously. Herman has made the same point, his view being >that tricks subsequent to a claim occur only in the "mind of the TD" >(from which, given the minds of most TDs, may angels and ministers of >grace defend us). But the fact remains that in evaluating a claim, a TD >is bound to consider first and foremost the line of play stated by the >claimer; if this consists in so many words of "I will revoke", I believe >that the TD is obliged to rule as if play had proceeded in such a way >that the claimer did indeed revoke, and to apply the appropriate revoke >penalty. I believe that the same consideration applies if the claimer >has stated, in so many words, "I will lead from the wrong hand" (despite >Grattan's assertion that the contrary is "patently obvious"). > >A claim is, in short, an accelerated form of play; irregularities >specified in a claim should be treated as though they had actually >occurred in play. Otherwise, as I have whimsically suggested (though I Here I agree. Consider the following case: Contract: 4 H South has taken 7 tricks so far. West has revoked in diamonds, and that revoke has already become established. Lead is in dummy. S A H - D 2 C - S 2 S 3 H - H - D 7 D - C - C 3 S 3 H - D - C 2 South, knowing that both E and W have shown out in diamonds, claims the last two tricks. W objects, since the diamond in dummy is not good. Do you hold, as TD's, that the revoke cannot be penalized with the two-trick penalty under L64A2, on the grounds that W did not actually win a trick with a card that could have been played to the revoke trick, since the last two tricks exist only in the TD's head and so no cards were actually played to those tricks? >was taken rather too seriously), no one would ever need to play a hand >at all - just claim, and you will never revoke or lead from the wrong >hand again. Nor will you ever make a successful unmarked finesse, execute a squeeze or endplay, etc. :( But there are, indeed, cases where a player would have made more tricks had he not made a claim statement. [Cases where he makes a claim statement including irrational plays--blocking suits, leading from the wrong hand, revokes, crashing honors, etc.] So be it. There are vastly more cases where making a claim statement will gain. >David Burn >London, England Still unable to find a way to disagree with DB about this claim, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 02:48:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BGluo28854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:47:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BGlmt28843 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:47:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f3BGleg18685 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:47:40 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:47 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke/What is equity...? 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: <3AD43CF5.2B8EB022@village.uunet.be> > Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > > > Indeed. But NOS got more tricks after the transfer than they would > > have > > done if there had been no revokes so the TD is perfectly at liberty to > > determine that NOS were not damaged. > > > > Well, what if the first "fault" of the OS is a stupid play? > Are you then also going to say - "although your revoke > gained you three tricks, I am not going to give the third > one back via L64C, because declarer was never going to make > so many tricks starting from scratch"? As I have said before (although not in this message) equity (whatever it is) only becomes relevant from the point of an infraction (in this case the first revoke). If declarer screws up he decreases his equity, if he subsequently revokes I will compare 64C to his decreased equity position at the time of the first revoke. Sorry this wasn't clear. > You're advocating a L64C return to equity at the start of > play why not at the start of the deal and determine that > 60% is sufficient compensation for all revokes. In my ideal world revoke (and all other penalty) adjustments would be purely equity based and we would have sufficient well-trained, well-paid TDs to deal with them. > I know that is silly, but it is the logical conclusion of > your point of view, Tim. Obviously not. > > > > Honestly I do understand your point. I even agree it is a reasonable > > interpretation of the law. I just don't accept it is the *only* > > reasonable interpretation. Nor do I consider it desirable that the > > law admits of such ambiguous interpretations but if we don't recognise > > that ambiguity is possible it is unlikely that it will ever be > > resolved. > > This does not make sense Tim. You seem to be saying that > our interpretation makes sense, but that yours does also, > and since this cannot be a good thing, your interpretation > must be right. No. I am saying that absent clarification by the lawmakers both interpretations are correct and that this situation is a bad thing. > Sorry for oversimplifying your position, and I know you > don't mean it like that, but your argumentation does not > make sense. > > Yes, there are two possible interpretations, but that can > only mean one thing : one of us has the interpretation that > the Lawmakers did not intend. On this we are agreed:-) > Now that can have two reasons. Either the text is not well > written, and both interpretations are possible, one being > the intended one, or the text is well written, and only one > interpretation is correct. Let's dismiss the possibility that the text admits of only one interpretation. Neither of is stupid and we can see different possibilities. > To all intents and purposes, it does not really matter which > one of these two cases is the truth. I believe the text is > clear, but if you want to persist that your interpretation > also follows the letter of the text, then I shall not > continue to argue against you. > But you cannot refute this : by putting L64C into the > Lawbook, the lawmakers had the intention of preventing that > anyone could gain from a revoke, even after application of > the mechanic penalties. Not to refute what you say but equally this : by putting in the bit about second revokes in the same suit not being subject to penalty the lawmakers intended the situation to be treated as a single revoke. Their intention was to ensure that no-one ever got a better score on a hand where they revoked, even multiple times, than they would have got by not revoking at all. > Do you really not see that OS benefited more from their > second revoke than you are giving back ? Of course I can see that. Can you not see that the OS suffered more by revoking twice than by not revoking at all. Of course you can. > > It was indicated that, at the time of writing, Kaplan (who was > > intimately involved in the process) believed this meant "equity at the > > point before the first revoke". I am content to believe that was the > > shared intent of the authors. OK their wording doesn't convey this > > perfectly but we all acknowledge how difficult it is to write good > > laws. > > > > We shall never know what Kaplan thought about a convoluted > case such as the one that started this thread. So perhaps > we should stop quoting Kaplan. Why? We have a case that is complicated and open to ambiguous interpretation under the law. I understand that it is normal procedure (at least in English law) to seek to establish the original intent of the legislators in such a situation. > > > > And I, not really liking the automatic penalty for a revoke law, feel > > that the penalising the first revoke is already a sufficient deterrent > > against deliberate revoking and have no problem with the concept that > > "going to be transferred revoke tricks" are never part of equity. > > > > Well, you don't seem to be putting a deterrent onto the > second revoke. I'm not. I believe that when the revoke laws were written it was thought pointless to have a deterrent for a second revoke since such are almost always accidental, I think that was a reasonable decision. Oh - we are both talking about an accidental second revoke aren't we? If it was deliberate I assume we would both be considering pretty severe PPs whatever adjustment we made. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 03:13:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BHD2m29859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 03:13:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BHCrt29849 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 03:12:54 +1000 (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 HDCF46CJ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:12:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:21:46 -0500 To: David Stevenson , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dummy might contest this claim. What to do after that, I have no idea. 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 Apr 12 03:30:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BHTwZ00704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 03:29:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BHTkt00689 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 03:29:47 +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 KAA29117; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:29:42 -0700 Message-Id: <200104111729.KAA29117@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:56:40 EDT." <200104102056.QAA29890@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:29:41 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Grant Sterling > > But I do not think it is obvious that, where declarer > > has specified a line of play that involves an immediate irregularity, and > > that irregularity benefits the defense, we must dissalow the irregularity. > > It occurs to me that even if you allow the revoke as part of the claim, > you certainly cannot assess penalty tricks: L64B3. (Of course that > assumes claimer has properly faced his cards as part of the claim.) On second thought, I believe this illustrates why it's important to distinguish whether we're talking about "actual" or "hypothetical" play. To my thinking, "actual" is what actually happened at the table; "hypothetical" is what we imagine would have happened without the claim, if all the players had played on. The "actual" things that happened are that declarer's LHO led, declarer faced his cards (we assume) and made a claim statement. The "hypothetical" things that would have happened, based on the claim statement are: LHO led, declarer played a low heart from dummy, East played the king if he had it or a low heart otherwise, declarer played a spade from hand. Now, either dummy asked "No spades, partner?", in which case declarer realized what was going on and changed his play to a heart; or dummy did not ask that question, in which case declarer then led to trick 12 to establish the revoke. (It's debatable whether this is a "doubtful point" that should be ruled against the claimer or not; DB has said he can accept a ruling either way, and I tend to agree with him.) However, once we figure out what the score hypothetically would have been, we award that as the actual score. This could well include a two-trick penalty if we decide that the revoke could be established. The point here is that I believe the "hypothetical" and the "actual" must not be confused. Earlier, I argued that L63A3 could not apply, because the claim occurred in the "actual" play and the revoke occurred only in the "hypothetical" play, and therefore the claim could not establish the revoke. I think the same applies here. Declarer has faced his cards in the "actual" game; but in the "hypothetical" one, where we imagine what would have happened had there been no claim, declarer had not faced his cards; therefore, L64B3 would not apply, and we're allowed to apply the two-trick penalty (depending on how we feel about the dummy question thing). That's why I believe the original director's statement that "the claim constituted a revoke" is imprecise. Declarer did not revoke in "actuality". However, he revoked in the "hypothetical" play, and it seems legitimate to penalize his actual score two tricks based on the hypothetical revoke. (I originally disagreed with the director, but I've come around to the view that his ruling may have been fine.) This all may sound confusing, but I believe that drawing a sharp delineation between "actual" and "hypothetical" play is the only way to make sense of the claim 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 Thu Apr 12 04:22:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BIKQ503033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:20:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BIKGt03022 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:20:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-57.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.57]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 966FE383CF; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:19:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005401c0c2b2$a5b147c0$39b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] More on Law 34 Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:32:23 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Adam Beneschan writes >> > >> >I think I've discovered an ambiguity in the Laws: >> > >> >North East South West >> > 1NT pass pass >> >pass(1) >> > >> >(1) out of turn >> > >> > >> >It appears that the conditions stated by Law 34 are met, since a call >> >has been followed by three passes, one of those passes was out of >> >rotation, and West has been deprived of a chance to call. If we apply >> >Law 34, it says that the auction reverts to West, and the auction >> >proceeds as though there had been no irregularity---with no penalty >> >for anyone. But is this right? Nobody has accepted the pass out of >> >turn, so shouldn't L30B1 be applied instead? That is, the auction >> >reverts to West *and* North is penalized by being required to pass at >> >his next turn. I think a clarification is needed in the Laws. >> >> There is no need for a clarification: you seem to be ignoring the Law >> to try to cause a problem. You never apply L34 without applying the >> Pass out of turn Law first: that would be ridiculous. > >Uh, what Law am I ignoring? I've already mentioned Law 34 and 30B1, >so I'm obviously not ignoring those. Is there some other Law other >than those two that I *am* ignoring, that applies here to tell us that >L30 takes precedence over L34? > >I also think it's correct to apply L30B1 first; but my thinking is >that a TD called to rule on this situation could look in the Law book, >see that L30B1 applies, see that L34 also applies, notice that the two >lead to different results, and be mystified about what to do. Those >of us who discuss the Laws frequently can pretty much guess "what they >meant to say", but I don't see anything in the text of the Laws that >would make the opposite interpretation "ridiculous" for a TD without >the privileged knowledge that we here have. If you see something >there that I don't see, could you point me to it? > > >Ton wrote: > >> The question is not whether to use L30 or (exclusive) L34. Yes North >> passed OOT so L30 applies. And only when east accepts this POOT L34 >> comes in sight. > >But L34 doesn't say that the three passes have to be accepted; L34 >says it applies when a call has been followed by three passes and one >was out of rotation, without saying anything about whether the passes >have to be accepted. Do you have a basis in the Laws for saying that >"only when East accepts this POOT L34 comes in sight"? Or is the >comment grounded in a WBFLC interpretation or something like that? Or >is the statement based on thinking such as "well, it's obvious to me >that that's what they meant"? > > >> I tried to tell something similar some messages ago, but who reads? > >Sorry, I don't remember this. Unfortunately, I can't follow every >thread in BLML. We disagree again: Fortunately I can't follow every thread in BLML. . Your question sounds honest, and I have to admit that it is not explicitly said that we should use L30 to start with. So TD's could be in doubt, you are right. It is mainly interpretation. The reason for L34 is that normally after three consecutive passes the auction is closed. And we do not want that when this takes away a turn to call. But when the third pass is OOT the auction is not closed yet, because this call OOT only becomes legal when it is accepted. And that is what has to be done first: to make this call legal or to cancel it. First L30 and if necessary L34. There is something similar with L17 and L25. If there are 4 consecutive passes (without a bid before) the auction is closed, according to 17. But the last pass might be changed using L 25. A player could change a call (with restrictions of course) himself, but even the TD should allow him to change it, when he asks for it. This case seems even less obvious than the first. So, let us start to dispute 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 Thu Apr 12 04:24:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BIMtg03166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:22:55 +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-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 f3BIMjt03159 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:22:46 +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 f3BIMc711242 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010411133521.00b415b0@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, 11 Apr 2001 14:23:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010411112334.007fb7e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <3AD41813.84122FE@village.uunet.be> <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:23 PM 4/11/01, Grant wrote: >At 10:38 AM 4/11/2001 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> What we appear to be debating is this: If a player makes a statement > >> to the effect that they will revoke on the next trick, does that make > >> it "'normal'" rather than "irrational" for them to actually do so? > > > >As long as we understand that this is the actual debate, > >then we can agree. The ruling should not focus on whether > >or not claimer has revoked, he hasn't. > > I totally disagree. The question of whether a revoke is > irrational >or not is irrelevant to this case. I think revokes are irrational, >and yet >I rule against this declarer [subject to a caveat later]. I do not think we can call it "irrational" for declarer to fail to follow suit in hearts when he has mis-seen a card and believes that a diamond has been led to the trick. If so, we are confronted with the need to make a "finding of fact" as to declarer's intent. If his statement is taken to mean that he intended to ruff a heart return, he must follow it, as some have said. If it is taken to mean that he intended to ruff a diamond return, then, as others have argued, his claim should be adjudicated as though made without any statement, as the statement he did make did not cover the actual situation, in which the (assumed) lead was a heart. As I read the original problem (admittedly possibly incorrectly), declarer made his statement that he would ruff, then attempted to retract it immediately upon noticing that the lead was in fact a heart rather than a diamond. That leaves us with the question of whether it is "irrational" or merely "careless or inferior" for him to follow through with his original line (ruffing the trick) once he notices that the lead was not what he thought he saw (or expected to see). > Now for my two points: > a) Some on this thread have spoken as though a player in >certain circumstances might lose the right to make an amended claim >statement. IT IS NEVER, EVER, TO A PLAYER'S ADVANTAGE TO MAKE SUCH A >STATEMENT. If the amended claim statement gives claimer more tricks >than the worst normal line, then the TD must, by L70c, ignore it. If >the amended statement is _worse_ than the worst normal line of play, >declarer may get stuck with it. Ergo, having your claim ruled as if >you made no statement of clarification is always as good as or better than >having your claim ruled upon with an original, rejected claim statement >and a later amendment. IMO, this scenario provides a counter-example. As an AC member, I would likely find declarer's attempt to amend his original claim statement as soon as he noticed that the lead wasn't what he thought it was compelling. If, OTOH, he raised the issue of having mistaken the lead for the first time in front of the committee, I would be reluctant to accept it. In Grant's terminology, the amended statement can change the determination of "the worst *normal* line of play", even to the claimer's benefit. > b) The question of whether a play is normal or irrational applies >only to _alternative lines of play imagined by the TD_, never to the >original claim statement or to an amended claim statement. Hence, even >if revokes are irrational, we still allow them if they are part of the >original claim statement or an amended claim statement. Agreed. But here, if we determine that the claim statement covered only the case of a diamond return, he has claimed without making any relevant statement, and thus all potential lines after the diamond return are "imagined by the TD". > Consider the following, non-revoke case: > Contract: 7NT > Lead in South. All non-spades have been played, with declarer >taking all 10 tricks. > > S AQ2 > >S J43 S T65 > > S K87 > > Declarer claims, saying "I will lead my King, overtaking it in >dummy with the Ace, and play the Queen and two." > This line of play is, IMHO, patently irrational. It doesn't >matter. The opponents will object that the given line of play yields >only two tricks, not three. Do you, as TD's, award declarer three tricks >on the grounds that his play is irrational? I do not--I say that we >follow >his original claim statement until it breaks down, even if it is >irrational. >The claim statement breaks down at trick 13, when defenders win the trick. > Down 1. And I'm _nice_ to claimers. Why would declarer make this particular claim? Absent any evidence to the contrary, it is likely that he has mis-seen the S2, and believes the position to be N: AQ/-/-/2; E: 1065/-/-/-; S: K87/-/-/-; W: J43/-/-/-, or something similar. Now, I argue, his line is not irrational, and I would hold him to it for down 1. But if he had said "I will lead my king, overtaking it in dummy with the ace, and play the queen and two... hold on, wait a minute, that's the two of spades, not clubs, isn't it?" I would rule that he has made no applicable claim statement, and award him all three tricks. > Ergo, an irrational play can be held against claimer if it is >part of his original claim statement. [And, depending on how you read >the law, possibly if it is part of an amended claim statement.] And I would say that a play which would be irrational in a vacuum may be rational in context, and may be assumed to be so when the claim statement makes it appear that this might be the case. I think we agree on substance here, and are merely debating semantics. > >If you want to argue that it would be merely "inferior", not > >"irrational" to revoke, then by all means do. > > I do not. If we argue that, then when determining the result >of a disputed claim the TD must imagine possible lines of play not stated >by declarer that include revokes, and I regard this as patently absurd. >Revokes are irrational. It's just that I don't think that fact is >relevant to this case. > > >I myself would favor an interpretation by which revoking is > >always irrational, except in those circumstances where it > >involves hidden cards or such. > > Agreed. > > >The fact that declarer has stated a line which includes a > >revoke can be an indication, but never a proof, that > >declarer is considering revoking. > > > >Myself, I prefer to believe that this declarer has claimed > >without looking what the card was that was played. > > > >But such things are for the TD to determine. > > Here I agree, and this was my caveat. If the TD decides that >this player _wouldn't really have revoked had the hand been played >out_, that is, if he rules that the player would have realized that his >claim statement had broken down immediately after playing the first >card, then he can rule differently. I can imagine giving such a ruling >in some cases. I agree with this also; I simply read the original problem as indeed such a case. If the TD must decide whether or not the player "wouldn't really have revoked had the hand been played out", he must, obviously, base his decision on whatever evidence is available to him. My only disagreement with Grant is with his argument that declarer's immediate attempt to modify his original claim statement may not be taken as providing such evidence when it benefits the claimer. 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 Apr 12 04:50:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BInoo04432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:49:51 +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 ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BIngt04422 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:49:43 +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 LAA30800; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:49:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200104111849.LAA30800@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] More on Law 34 In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:32:23 +0200." <005401c0c2b2$a5b147c0$39b6f1c3@kooijman> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:49:32 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > We disagree again: Fortunately I can't follow every thread in BLML. > . > Your question sounds honest, and I have to admit that it is not explicitly > said that we should use L30 to start with. So TD's could be in doubt, you > are right. I don't think we really disagree; your logic is impeccable, and I'd certainly apply L30 if I were called on to rule in this situation. But, especially given Grattan's recent comment: "We are not asked to judge the law, only to apply it", I don't think we should be relying on TD's using "logic" and "common sense" to arrive at the correct interpretation, especially when we're simultaneously telling TD's that they need to restrict their use of "logic" and "common sense" and apply the Laws as written. I'm not trying to cause a problem, just trying to suggest that there's a possible defect in the wording of the Laws that needs addressing. > It is mainly interpretation. The reason for L34 is that normally after three > consecutive passes the auction is closed. And we do not want that when this > takes away a turn to call. But when the third pass is OOT the auction is not > closed yet, because this call OOT only becomes legal when it is accepted. > And that is what has to be done first: to make this call legal or to cancel > it. First L30 and if necessary L34. > There is something similar with L17 and L25. If there are 4 consecutive > passes (without a bid before) the auction is closed, according to 17. But > the last pass might be changed using L 25. A player could change a call > (with restrictions of course) himself, but even the TD should allow him to > change it, when he asks for it. This case seems even less obvious than the > first. So, let us start to dispute it. Ouch. I don't know the answer to this. I can see a possible problem with "simple" solutions, though: after the auction goes pass-pass-pass-pass, players often show their hands immediately to see who could have made a part-score somewhere. -- 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 Apr 12 06:41:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BKe3L07489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:40:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.171]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BKdst07485 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:39:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-32.elmiron.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.92.32] helo=oemcomputer) by cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 14nRP1-00028l-00; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:39:47 +0100 Message-ID: <009801c0c2c7$a2083060$205c883e@oemcomputer> From: "James Vickers" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: [BLML] logical alternatives Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:35:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0081_01C0C2CF.44057100" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0081_01C0C2CF.44057100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable DWS wrote: >> So this is a common misunderstanding for the simple reason that it = >> is what the Law actually says. I would like to rule the way that=20 >> you and Alain and (presumably) most others directors would, but if = >> I adjusted the score in Alain's example and the offending side=20 >> asked me what the legal basis for my ruling was, I would, to my=20 >> great embarrassment, be unable to provide an answer.=20 > > I do not really understand this. > >> I have been complaining about this discrepancy to anyone who cares = >> to listen for over ten years, and have neither made much headway = in=20 >> convincing others, nor have I heard many convincing arguments in=20 >> return. I understand that some of the interpretation I have cited=20 >> may not apply outside the EBU's jurisdiction, but the Laws=20 >> themselves apply worldwide.=20 > > Well, I am listening. What discrepancy? I'm so pleased someone is listening. The discrepancy is that the = majority of directors whose opinions I've heard on this matter attempt = to rule one way when applying Law 16A, while the Laws of the game and = the EBU TD Guide tell them to rule another way. This is admirably = illustrated by Alain's example: >AG : IBTD. If, barring the UI, doubling is 50% and bidding is 50%, = albeit >with many possibilities, none of which would be made by more than 20% = of >the player's peers, we shouldn't allow the double. > >An example : AQJxxx >-- >Kx >AQ10xx > >After 1S 2H ...p p > >I guess about 40-50% would double, the other being spread between 3C, = 4C, >3H. The 'suggested' double should not stand. Let's say for the sake of argument that the offender's options absent = the UI would be: double (40%), 3C (20%), 4C (20%), 3H (20%). We'll take = it as read that the action taken by offender was suggested over and = above these alternatives by the UI and caused damage.=20 What the Law book says is that the TD should see if the offender has = chosen "from among _logical_ alternative actions one which could = demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous = information" (L16A). The EBU defines a logical alternative as "a call = or play which three or more in ten of equivalent players could be = expected to make in the particular situation" (EBU TD Guide 16.6). Since = all other conceivable options fall well below the required standard of = 30%, the offender had no logical alternative to double and no adjustment = of the score can be considered.=20 What Alain and others seem to be saying is that there are two = alternative actions: double (40%) and "not-double" (60%). "Not-double" = now becomes a logical alternative and the score may be adjusted as the = offender could have chosen "not-double". Unfortunately "not-double" is = not an action, it is the sum of many different actions, and it is clear = from the Laws and the TD Guide that "logical alternative" refers to _a = call or play_ and not all other conceivable calls or plays in their = entirety, however much you may wish it were otherwise. Even if you try to lump all alternatives in this case together under the = category of "bidding on" and declare "bidding on" to come under the = definition of "logical alternative", it would not take much ingenuity to = adjust the example hand slightly to bring pass into the running. If the = alternatives were now: double (60%), pass (20%), 3C (20%), would you = still cancel the double?=20 I could only rule the way Alain suggests by acting against what the Laws = and the TD Guide say. If the offender were then to ask me where the Laws = give me sanction for such a ruling (as I believe they would have a right = to), what could I say? Is this really so difficult to understand, David? James Vickers Reading, UK =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0081_01C0C2CF.44057100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
DWS wrote:
>>    So this is a common misunderstanding = for the=20 simple reason that it
>>    is what the Law = actually=20 says. I would like to rule the way that
>>    = you and=20 Alain and (presumably) most others directors would, but if=20
>>    I adjusted the score in Alain's example = and the=20 offending side
>>    asked me what the legal = basis for=20 my ruling was, I would, to my
>>    great=20 embarrassment, be unable to provide an answer. 
>
> I = do not=20 really understand this.
>
>>    I have = been=20 complaining about this discrepancy to anyone who cares=20
>>    to listen for over ten years, and have = neither=20 made much headway in
>>    convincing others, = nor have=20 I heard many convincing arguments in
>>    = return. I=20 understand that some of the interpretation I have cited=20
>>    may not apply outside the EBU's = jurisdiction, but=20 the Laws
>>    themselves apply worldwide.=20
>
> Well, I am listening.  What=20 discrepancy?
 
I'm so pleased=20 someone is listening. The discrepancy is that the majority of directors = whose=20 opinions I've heard on this matter attempt to rule one way when applying = Law=20 16A, while the Laws of the game and the EBU TD Guide tell them to = rule=20 another way. This is admirably illustrated by Alain's=20 example:
 
>AG : IBTD. If, barring the UI, doubling is 50% and bidding is = 50%,=20 albeit
>with many possibilities, none of which would be made by = more than=20 20% of
>the player's peers, we shouldn't allow the = double.
>

>An example :=20 AQJxxx
>--
>Kx
>AQ10xx
>
>After 1S 2H ...p p
>
>I guess about 40-50% would double, the other = being=20 spread between 3C, 4C,
>3H. The 'suggested' double should not = stand.
 
Let's say for the sake of argument that the offender's options = absent=20 the UI would be: double (40%), 3C (20%), 4C (20%), 3H (20%). We'll = take it=20 as read that the action taken by offender was suggested over and = above=20 these alternatives by the UI and caused damage.
 
What the Law book says is that the TD should see if the = offender has=20 chosen "from among _logical_ alternative actions one which could=20 demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous = information"=20 (L16A). The EBU defines  a logical alternative as "a call = or=20 play which three or more in ten of equivalent players could be = expected to=20 make in the particular situation" (EBU TD Guide 16.6). Since all other=20 conceivable options fall well below the required standard of 30%, the = offender=20 had no logical alternative to double and no adjustment of the score can = be=20 considered.
 
What Alain and others seem to be saying is that there are two = alternative=20 actions: double (40%) and "not-double" (60%). "Not-double" now becomes a = logical=20 alternative and the score may be adjusted as the offender could have = chosen=20 "not-double". Unfortunately "not-double" is not an action, it is the sum = of many=20 different actions, and it is clear from the Laws and the TD Guide that = "logical=20 alternative" refers to _a call or play_ and not all other conceivable = calls or=20 plays in their entirety, however much you may wish it were = otherwise.
 
Even if you try to lump all alternatives in this case together = under=20 the category of "bidding on" and declare "bidding on" to come under = the=20 definition of "logical alternative", it would not take much = ingenuity to=20 adjust the example hand slightly to bring pass into the = running. If=20 the alternatives were now: double (60%), pass (20%), 3C (20%), would you = still=20 cancel the double?
 
I could only rule the way Alain suggests by acting against what the = Laws=20 and the TD Guide say. If the offender were then to ask me where the = Laws=20 give me sanction for such a ruling (as I believe they would have a right = to),=20 what could I say?
 
Is this really so difficult to understand, David?
 
James Vickers
Reading, UK
 
 
 

 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0081_01C0C2CF.44057100-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 07:35:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BLYr622891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:34:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r12.mx.aol.com (imo-r12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BLYkt22853 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:34:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 7.ff.4ab9ab7 (6397) for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:34:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:34:35 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] logical alternatives To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ff.4ab9ab7.280627eb_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_ff.4ab9ab7.280627eb_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 4:43:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JVickers@readinguk.fsnet.co.uk writes: > What Alain and others seem to be saying is that there are two alternative > actions: double (40%) and "not-double" (60%). "Not-double" now becomes a > logical alternative and the score may be adjusted as the offender could > have chosen "not-double". Unfortunately "not-double" is not an action, it > is the sum of many different actions, and it is clear from the Laws and the > TD Guide that "logical alternative" refers to _a call or play_ and not all > other conceivable calls or plays in their entirety, however much you may > wish it were otherwise. > > +=+ From Grattan: An argument in which Kaplan and I agreed so very many years ago is that the references to percentages are misleading; percentages were crutches provided before our time together as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the WBF Laws Committee and before I chaired WBF Appeals Committees, for Directors whose judgemental capabilities found in the language of the Laws something they could not put a value to. I am content with the WBF position today and in my perception all those people who find it necessary to think in terms of percentages are not entire in their judgemental powers: "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." - WBF Code of Practice, January 2000. " There was a discussion of the interpretation of the term 'logical alternative' in Law 73F1. Both Mr Kaplan and Mr Endicott observed that in their respective Zones they were urging Appeals Committees and Directors to try to avoid thinking about the idea of 70% or 75% expectation of the call actually made as being a justification for it; they did not consider this was the most helpful way of approaching the question. What should be examined is the call that is NOT made ; this should be deemed a 'logical alternative' if quite a number of players of like standard could be expected to make it." (WBF Laws Committee minute, August 1992.) What is a significant proportion? Don't ask yourself 'how many?' ask yourself 'would the number be significant?". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --part1_ff.4ab9ab7.280627eb_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 4:43:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
JVickers@readinguk.fsnet.co.uk writes:


What Alain and others seem to be saying is that there are two alternative
actions: double (40%) and "not-double" (60%). "Not-double" now becomes a
logical alternative and the score may be adjusted as the offender could
have chosen "not-double". Unfortunately "not-double" is not an action, it
is the sum of many different actions, and it is clear from the Laws and the
TD Guide that "logical alternative" refers to _a call or play_ and not all
other conceivable calls or plays in their entirety, however much you may
wish it were otherwise.


+=+    From Grattan:
An argument in which Kaplan and I agreed so very many years ago is that the
references to percentages are misleading; percentages were crutches provided
before our time together as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the WBF Laws
Committee and before I chaired WBF Appeals Committees, for Directors whose
judgemental capabilities found in the language of the Laws something they
could not put a value to. I am content with the WBF position today and in my
perception all those people who find it necessary to think in terms of
percentages are not entire in their judgemental powers:

          "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." - WBF Code of
Practice, January 2000.

          " There was a discussion of the interpretation of the term
'logical alternative' in Law 73F1. Both Mr Kaplan and Mr Endicott observed
that in their respective Zones they were urging Appeals Committees and
Directors to try to avoid thinking about the idea of 70% or 75% expectation
of the call actually made as being a justification for it; they did not
consider this was the most helpful way of approaching the question. What
should be examined is the call that is NOT made ; this should be deemed a
'logical alternative' if quite a number of players of like standard could be
expected to make it." (WBF Laws Committee minute, August 1992.)

What is a significant proportion? Don't ask yourself 'how many?' ask yourself
'would the number be significant?".               ~ Grattan ~   +=+
--part1_ff.4ab9ab7.280627eb_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 Apr 12 07:44:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BLhvi26016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:43:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3BLhot25975 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:43:51 +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 OAA02019; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:43:45 -0700 Message-Id: <200104112143.OAA02019@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] logical alternatives In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:35:02 BST." <009801c0c2c7$a2083060$205c883e@oemcomputer> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:43:44 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk James Vickers wrote: > What Alain and others seem to be saying is that there are two = > alternative actions: double (40%) and "not-double" (60%). "Not-double" = > now becomes a logical alternative and the score may be adjusted as the = > offender could have chosen "not-double". Unfortunately "not-double" is = > not an action, it is the sum of many different actions, and it is clear = > from the Laws and the TD Guide that "logical alternative" refers to _a = > call or play_ and not all other conceivable calls or plays in their = > entirety, however much you may wish it were otherwise. It's not clear from the Laws at all. The Laws use the terms "logical alternative" and "logical alternative action"; however, neither of these, nor the term "action", is defined in the Laws. So there's nothing in the Laws that would make it wrong to call "a bid other than double" an "action". I don't know anything about the EBU TD Guide, but there are a few things I can guess about the book just from the title, without bothering to read the text---one of those being that it's a "guide". I.e. not binding. > Even if you try to lump all alternatives in this case together under the = > category of "bidding on" and declare "bidding on" to come under the = > definition of "logical alternative", it would not take much ingenuity to = > adjust the example hand slightly to bring pass into the running. If the = > alternatives were now: double (60%), pass (20%), 3C (20%), would you = > still cancel the double?=20 This one is harder. I don't know. Depending on the auction, it might be possible to lump pass and 3C together (particularly if pass is forcing), but in most cases, I don't think I'd be able to. > I could only rule the way Alain suggests by acting against what the Laws = > and the TD Guide say. If the offender were then to ask me where the Laws = > give me sanction for such a ruling (as I believe they would have a right = > to), what could I say? Tell them that you consider a bid to be a logical alternative action, and that there's nothing in the Laws that speaks against this interpretation. -- 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 Apr 12 08:28:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BMSZg27144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:28:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BMSBt27139 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:28:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BFdAF03961 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:39:10 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Sloppy wording (was Re: [BLML] More on Law 34) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:34:00 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200104102128.OAA08137@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200104102128.OAA08137@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01041115391003.03881@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Adam Beneschan wrote: > A (rather less serious) problem: Suppose we do apply L30B1, as I think > we should, and West passes. Now L30B1 says that North must pass when > next it is his turn to call. However, it won't be his turn to call > again until the next board. Does that mean that North is required to > pass on the next board? After all, L30B1 doesn't say "at his next > turn to call on the current hand"; it just says "at his next turn". This problem can occur with many other situations as well. If West drops the SQ on the table during the auction, East is required to pass at his next turn to call. However, if the auction ends before East gets a turn to call, should the penalty carry over to the next board? Another case; East has the SQ as a MPC, and declarer orders West not to lead a spade as long as he retains the lead. West is void in spades and wins the remainder of the tricks. Is he barred from leading a spade on the next deal, assuming he becomes the leader? -- 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 Apr 12 08:59:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BMweY27319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:58:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3BMwXt27315 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:58:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3BG9Z903984 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:09:35 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Laws for players (was Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:02:49 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200104062123.RAA12296@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200104062123.RAA12296@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01041116093504.03881@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 06 Apr 2001, Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: David J Grabiner > > "The Laws that are Important for Players to Know" > > > > Which Laws are these? The ones which players will need to apply at the > > table with no TD present. (The basic rules of bridge are omitted from > > this list.) > > Exactly. Of course the basic rules, the ones that define correct > procedure, should be included in the eventual book, but David assumes > that we on BLML know them. However, for purposes of publishing a guide to the Laws for players, we would not need to include the Law that a double may only be made when the last non-pass call was a bid by an opponent, or that undoubled vulnerable undertricks score 50 each. These are things that players would know before getting such a book. > > 16A: Do not choose a LA which is suggested by partner's UI. > > Not needed, I think, as long as 73C is in the book. The obligations are different, and this is one of the most common misconceptions. If partner hesitates in a competitive auction, suggesting that you bid on, L73C indicates that you may not take advantage, by bidding when you have otherwise passed, while L16A indicates that you may not bid even if you were previously planning to bid if passing is a LA. > Probably add parts of 45C, which defines when a card is played > and whether it can be changed. Agreed. > We could quibble about the exact list, but the above gives the > flavor of what is needed. I wonder how long the book would be. The list we made has eighteen Laws, and only parts of half of them (and many others could be abbreviated; it is important for dummy to know not to look at declarer's hand, but if he does, the TD should be called, so dummy does not need to know the penalty). -- 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 Apr 12 10:29:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3C0SCe27839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:28:12 +1000 (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 f3C0S8t27835 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:28:08 +1000 (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 KAA14559 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:28:08 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010412102825.0140bd90@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:28:26 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Schoderb@aol.com (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear Alan, HOpe you are clear now that when mail emenates from my E-mail address it could be from me, or from Grattan. He uses his "+=+" as his identifier. Me? I have yet to decide on one. Re the discussion on revoke etc., during a claim. Let me try once. Firstly I agree completely with the statments made by Grattan re legality, proposals, tricks, establishment of revokes, etc. BUT, this is not about revokes at all. It is about a situation clearly and completely handled by LAW 70 A CLAIM that has been contested by the opponents. So here goes. Why contested? Could be because of impossible plays, leads from the wrong hand, miscounting of cards (including trumps usually), revoke as part of claim, etc. What-have-you. But for sure because the opponents don't think claimer can get what he wants by following his statement(s). The TD follows the Law in 70B. If trumps not involved or new line stated, or unstated, he then goes back to A and does what it says. Since there is no further play (see Law68D) from the point of claim there is no play to permit, adjust, forbid, insist upon, etc. The TD decides whether the contesting of the claim was valid, whether the claim itself was valid, and then awards tricks giving any doubtful ones to the non-claimant. PERIOD! The danger in this discussion is that there creeps in the thought that there can be play after a claim (in this case directed by the Director). Specifically the business about stating a line of play that includes a revoke makes the claim invalid. Does anyone wish to say that since he was proposing a revoke that we are now going to apply the Laws on revokes to something that is Law68D "....All play subsequent to a claim or concession SHALL BE VOIDED by the Director....." Seems clear to me, in my simple mind. Regards, Kojak -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 10:29:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3C0Rle27833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:27:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3C0Rgt27829 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:27:42 +1000 (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 KAA14542 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:27:39 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010412102757.0140a2a0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:27:57 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Schoderb@aol.com (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/11/01 1:26:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, AlanLeBendig writes: I only wanted to clarify to Grattan and others that I was well aware that a revoke was illegal. +=+ Hi Alan (et al), I didn't actually believe u cd get that wrong. What concerned me was the addition to the plethora of loose expression by which we all manage to characterize blml. However, I'm not sure we are out of the wood yet. In making a claim claimer establishes any revoke that has occurred. The act does not establish any notional 'revoke' contained in the statement of claim; the clarification statement occurs after the claim has been made. The laws make it clear that it is an immediately subsequent action. The Director does not allow an illegal play in adjudicating the claim. When the other side objects to claimer's proposal to ruff a lead when he has a card of the suit, the Director requires that the proposed action shall entail play of a legal card on the lead, and whomsoever it may be then wins the trick, but the revoke has not been established and its correction is without penalty. The Director then, and only then, proceeds to consider the proposed play to the following trick. We must observe that a clarification statement is a proposal or a series of proposals, not a play; the laws specify that play has ceased and describe the statement as a proposal of the line of play by which the claimed tricks will be won. Cheers, ~ 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 Apr 12 18:03:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3C7xrc06457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:59:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3C7xdt06386 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:59:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-203.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.203]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3C7xWA08063 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:59:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD465E9.4BA6C4F7@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:10:49 +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] Law 34 or not? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B812@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > > > no - east did call - so he was not deprived. > > AT THAT TURN , Herman; AT THAT TURN !!!!!! > Yes Ton, I know. Three passes have been made, by west, north and east. These are "at that turn". South has been deprived "at that turn". East has been deprived at the previous turn ! > Don't tell me you are trying to convince BLML without even knowing what the > laws really say, not having a textbook? But it doesn't help, since I know > that the Dutch translation is clear too. > Actually, not very - where is the "at that turn" in the dutch text ? But in any case, both text use a definite article to indicate that one player (the one that has been deprived) is the next to call. It does not say "the first player to be deprived", and maybe it should. I vote to put the call now to South as "THE player who was deprived". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 18:03:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3C7xre06458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:59:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3C7xft06398 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:59:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-203.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.203]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3C7xbA08158 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:59:37 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD469E8.43212192@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:27:52 +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] Law 34 or not? References: <90.12db6fff.2805b836@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (Kojak's mailer set to something I cannot respond to) I agree with one thing Kojak/Grattan say This discussion is barmy ! However, consider what would happen in real life. North bids 1NT, and now West passes out of turn. North either passes without realizing what he's done, or he decides to pass when the TD offers him this opportunity. Does not influence the case. Now it's up to East. East has to make a call, and the auction is within the realms of reality. East may well think that he can now end the auction by passing, but any well-trained TD will already tell him about L34. If East passes, the auction is not over. East has every opportunity to make a call, and he chooses to pass. Now who has been deprived of calling ? South of course ! Not East ! East has had his turn, when North decided to accept wests POOT. So the bidding now returns to South. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 20:52:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CAq7423263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:52:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3CAq0t23259 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:52:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-187.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.187]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3CApsn21551 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:51:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD58281.9B89E585@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:25:05 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010411112334.007fb7e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > I want to focus on two key points here, in hope that we can at > least arrive at agreement on one of them! Please let me know if you > think my interpretations of law are incorrect! > > >then we can agree. The ruling should not focus on whether > >or not claimer has revoked, he hasn't. > > I totally disagree. With what do you disagree Grant ? Do you think he has revoked ? No he hasn't, he has claimed. If anyone is still convinced that this man revoked, let him speak now or forever remain silent. This is not a revoke ruling, it is a claim ruling. > The question of whether a revoke is irrational > or not is irrelevant to this case. I think revokes are irrational, > and yet > I rule against this declarer [subject to a caveat later]. > On what basis, Grant ? > Now for my two points: > a) Some on this thread have spoken as though a player in > certain circumstances might lose the right to make an amended claim > statement. IT IS NEVER, EVER, TO A PLAYER'S ADVANTAGE TO MAKE SUCH A > STATEMENT. If the amended claim statement gives claimer more tricks > than the worst normal line, then the TD must, by L70c, ignore it. If > the amended statement is _worse_ than the worst normal line of play, > declarer may get stuck with it. Ergo, having your claim ruled as if > you made no statement of clarification is always as good as or better than > having your claim ruled upon with an original, rejected claim statement > and a later amendment. I tend to disagree. By issuing an immediate correction, one can often provide the TD with evidence what one was going on in claimer's mind. By remaining silent - one gives no such evidence and TD will rule at his worst. This claimer has issued a statement (with thanks to Eric for the argument - it's a good one) that he intends to ruff a diamond return. By changing that statement immediately, this claimer has shown: a) at which point he realized that the claim statement was faulty; b) that he knows how to play the hand in the real situation. It can never be to ones disadvantage to have these things known to the TD and AC. Absent this statement, I would perhaps also rule that it is possible that claimer would ruff this trick. With the statement, I can be confident that there is no such possibility. We should be dealing with this claim as if there has been no claim statement, but with the added knowledge of what claimer knows about the hand. > b) The question of whether a play is normal or irrational applies > only to _alternative lines of play imagined by the TD_, never to the > original claim statement or to an amended claim statement. Hence, even > if revokes are irrational, we still allow them if they are part of the > original claim statement or an amended claim statement. > Indeed we do. If we are in a situation where it is possible for claimer to continue on his stated line without remarking that it is irrational. I offer the "strange claim" as an example. In it, the claimer made a hasty statement, and it was clear that if he was going to execute it, he could never embark on the line without noticing that it was very inferior. The general consensus was that we would not hold declarer to a literal execution of his claim statement, even when, by a quirk of fate, it was the only winning line. To return to this original, if declarer were to have indicated that he did not know he still had a heart, I would indeed rule that it would be possible for him to revoke. But here, I am convinced that the statement was a slip of the tongue and I believe there is not even the slightest possibility that this claimer would in actual fact revoke. Please from now on, those of you who still want to withold any trick from declarer, do one of the folowing : - if you believe this declarer must be judged to revoke because he said he did, then go sit in one corner and don't bother me any more - if you believe this is a claim, and that declarer is held to his statement because that is what he said he would do, then go sit in another corner and have a pleasant time chatting to David Burn there - if on the other hand you find there is a large enough possibility that this declarer would revoke in real life, despite of his announcement to the contrary, then please find two other AC members to vote against me on that. But at least you are within a correct grasp of the laws. > Consider the following, non-revoke case: > Contract: 7NT > Lead in South. All non-spades have been played, with declarer > taking all 10 tricks. > > S AQ2 > > S J43 S T65 > > S K87 > > Declarer claims, saying "I will lead my King, overtaking it in > dummy with the Ace, and play the Queen and two." > This line of play is, IMHO, patently irrational. It doesn't > matter. The opponents will object that the given line of play yields > only two tricks, not three. Do you, as TD's, award declarer three tricks > on the grounds that his play is irrational? I do not--I say that we follow > his original claim statement until it breaks down, even if it is irrational. Indeed. Completely correct. I doubt if we can really find a case like this, without some explanation as to why this would happen. Perhaps declarer has dropped the 2 small spades on the ground and thinks they are not-high clubs. But indeed, this is not an irrational line to this declarer. > The claim statement breaks down at trick 13, when defenders win the trick. > Down 1. And I'm _nice_ to claimers. > > Ergo, an irrational play can be held against claimer if it is > part of his original claim statement. [And, depending on how you read > the law, possibly if it is part of an amended claim statement.] > Yes it can. But that does not mean the original one should. We should always try and find out WHY the claimer included an irrational line in his statement, and then determine when -to him- the irrationality would be revealed. > >If you want to argue that it would be merely "inferior", not > >"irrational" to revoke, then by all means do. > > I do not. If we argue that, then when determining the result > of a disputed claim the TD must imagine possible lines of play not stated > by declarer that include revokes, and I regard this as patently absurd. > Revokes are irrational. It's just that I don't think that fact is > relevant to this case. > > >I myself would favor an interpretation by which revoking is > >always irrational, except in those circumstances where it > >involves hidden cards or such. > > Agreed. > > >The fact that declarer has stated a line which includes a > >revoke can be an indication, but never a proof, that > >declarer is considering revoking. > > > >Myself, I prefer to believe that this declarer has claimed > >without looking what the card was that was played. > > > >But such things are for the TD to determine. > > Here I agree, and this was my caveat. If the TD decides that > this player _wouldn't really have revoked had the hand been played > out_, that is, if he rules that the player would have realized that his > claim statement had broken down immediately after playing the first > card, then he can rule differently. I can imagine giving such a ruling > in some cases. The 'lead from the wrong hand' cases, I think, are much > less likely to be ruled this way--surely that mistake wouldn't be > caught until too late. > OK Grant, I believe we agree on the basics for this ruling. We do not agree on the interpretation that we need to give to the claim statement, and that is something we cannot resolve between us. You are allowed to sit in my corner, even if our actual rulings would differ. Welcome. Too bad we don't have David Burn here in our corner to amuse us with his tales. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 20:52:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CApnw23257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:51:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3CApgt23253 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:51:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-187.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.187]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3CAp3n21361 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:51:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD563C0.D4E98585@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:13:52 +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] Timing of TD call References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@village.uunet.be> <2xws9XARMfz6Ew8h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACEE22B.35DB489D@village.uunet.be> <001301c0c015$be032fe0$a5d77ad5@pbncomputer> <3AD196BD.C533C86F@village.uunet.be> <3AD30301.7A4A179E@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > | > | The Laws of bridge, and the WBF in general, do not want to > | discourage the development of bidding systems. > > i point out that if the objective is to not discourage system > development, the avenue to take is to eliminate all regulation of > system. i am inclined to believe that a substantial proportion of > regulators would be resistant to the idea. > The objective there is not to stifle development of system, but discouragement of use of system in purely negative ways. There has never been any WBF drive against positive system development. > | > | One question has not yet been answered by anybody. Where in > | the Laws does it say that, if a TD has offered a player the > | L21B1 right to a change, that this is final ? > > now that you mention it L21B reads > > 21B > 1. blah blah > 2. blah blah > 3. When it is too late to change a call, the director may award an > adjusted score [L40C may apply] > > L25 grants players the right to change their calls [even though such > changes may be subject to penalty] until their LHO has called. > according to 21B3 the director may award an adjusted score for ANY > time it is too late to change a call. there being no requirement of > damage; nor a requirement of MI. nothing about a connection to 21B1 o > r B2 either. > Your point being ? My point is that either this is enough to refuse redress, or it isn't. We don't need L9 to refuse redress. > i believe that the language first appeared in 1975!! > > Do i detect a lengthy discussion at the next gathering of the LC? > Whyever should it be lengthy ? I believe the LC clearly knows what they intended and are probably a bit amused at our discussion. So probably a quick reformulation of the intent is all that is needed. > regards > roger pewick > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallX-Mozilla-Status: 0009index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 21:12:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CBCcK23313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:12:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3CBCPt23309 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:12:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-186.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.186]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 446FD36B7F; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:10:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007301c0c33f$cfd3e3e0$bab6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "James Vickers" , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] logical alternatives Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:40:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003F_01C0C345.6C977980" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C0C345.6C977980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 I could only rule the way Alain suggests by acting against what the = Laws and the TD Guide say. If the offender were then to ask me where the = Laws give me sanction for such a ruling (as I believe they would have a = right to), what could I say? =20 Is this really so difficult to understand, David? =20 James Vickers Reading, UK =20 =20 Don't accuse the laws please. As Grattan and I tried to tell you = the laws don't speak about 30% as necessary to make a call a logical = alternative.=20 Read out loud L 16A and the definition as given by the WBF to this = offender. And ignore what others said or wrote before if that is = confusing.=20 =20 ton =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C0C345.6C977980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 
I could only rule the way Alain suggests by acting against what = the=20 Laws and the TD Guide say. If the offender were then to ask me where = the=20 Laws give me sanction for such a ruling (as I believe they would = have a=20 right to), what could I say?
 
Is this really so difficult to understand, David?
 
James Vickers
Reading, UK
 
 
 Don't=20 accuse the laws please. As Grattan and I tried to tell you the laws = don't=20 speak about 30% as necessary to make a call a logical alternative.=20
Read out loud L 16A and the = definition=20 as given by the WBF to this offender. And ignore what others said or = wrote=20 before if that is confusing.

ton
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C0C345.6C977980-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 12 23:37:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CDaLe16251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:36:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3CDaCt16207 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:36:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-187.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.187]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3CAkhn20861 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:49:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD563C0.D4E98585@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:13:52 +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] Timing of TD call References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@village.uunet.be> <2xws9XARMfz6Ew8h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACEE22B.35DB489D@village.uunet.be> <001301c0c015$be032fe0$a5d77ad5@pbncomputer> <3AD196BD.C533C86F@village.uunet.be> <3AD30301.7A4A179E@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > | > | The Laws of bridge, and the WBF in general, do not want to > | discourage the development of bidding systems. > > i point out that if the objective is to not discourage system > development, the avenue to take is to eliminate all regulation of > system. i am inclined to believe that a substantial proportion of > regulators would be resistant to the idea. > The objective there is not to stifle development of system, but discouragement of use of system in purely negative ways. There has never been any WBF drive against positive system development. > | > | One question has not yet been answered by anybody. Where in > | the Laws does it say that, if a TD has offered a player the > | L21B1 right to a change, that this is final ? > > now that you mention it L21B reads > > 21B > 1. blah blah > 2. blah blah > 3. When it is too late to change a call, the director may award an > adjusted score [L40C may apply] > > L25 grants players the right to change their calls [even though such > changes may be subject to penalty] until their LHO has called. > according to 21B3 the director may award an adjusted score for ANY > time it is too late to change a call. there being no requirement of > damage; nor a requirement of MI. nothing about a connection to 21B1 o > r B2 either. > Your point being ? My point is that either this is enough to refuse redress, or it isn't. We don't need L9 to refuse redress. > i believe that the language first appeared in 1975!! > > Do i detect a lengthy discussion at the next gathering of the LC? > Whyever should it be lengthy ? I believe the LC clearly knows what they intended and are probably a bit amused at our discussion. So probably a quick reformulation of the intent is all that is needed. > regards > roger pewick > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 00:29:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CESrr02382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:28:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3CESTt02307 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:28:30 +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 KAA18107 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA16972 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:23:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:23:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104121423.KAA16972@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Laws for players (was Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David J Grabiner > However, for purposes of publishing a guide to the Laws for players, we > would not need to include the Law that a double may only be made when > the last non-pass call was a bid by an opponent, or that undoubled > vulnerable undertricks score 50 each. These are things that players > would know before getting such a book. How would they know them? I think both the above, and indeed the entire scoring table, would need to be included. (It's 100, not 50, by the way. We on BLML all know it was just a typo, but I don't think a new player would know that.) > > > 16A: Do not choose a LA which is suggested by partner's UI. > > > > Not needed, I think, as long as 73C is in the book. > > The obligations are different, and this is one of the most common > misconceptions. If partner hesitates in a competitive auction, > suggesting that you bid on, L73C indicates that you may not take > advantage, by bidding when you have otherwise passed... My copy of L73C says "carefully avoid taking any advantage." I think this is quite a bit stronger than merely doing what you were planning to do anyway. (I know my view isn't universal.) Anyway, I think 16A is too complicated for players, but maybe the part of L16 before A should go in. > The list we made has eighteen Laws, and only parts of half of them (and > many others could be abbreviated; This sounds quite manageable, even if you add the extra things I think are needed. Kent B.: are you here? Would you have time to edit a "Laws for Players" and put it on the ACBL web site? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 01:11:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CFBAq15399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:11:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3CFB1t15355 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:11:02 +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 f3CFApn86785 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010412105634.00b329c0@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, 12 Apr 2001 11:12:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call In-Reply-To: <3AD563C0.D4E98585@village.uunet.be> References: <200103290026.QAA20172@mailhub.irvine.com> <21Qj9eA0buy6EwFX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACC313A.B523E94@village.uunet.be> <3ACD821F.21EC18C6@village.uunet.be> <2xws9XARMfz6Ew8h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3ACEE22B.35DB489D@village.uunet.be> <001301c0c015$be032fe0$a5d77ad5@pbncomputer> <3AD196BD.C533C86F@village.uunet.be> <3AD30301.7A4A179E@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 04:13 AM 4/12/01, Herman wrote: >Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > | The Laws of bridge, and the WBF in general, do not want to > > | discourage the development of bidding systems. > > > > i point out that if the objective is to not discourage system > > development, the avenue to take is to eliminate all regulation of > > system. i am inclined to believe that a substantial proportion of > > regulators would be resistant to the idea. > >The objective there is not to stifle development of system, >but discouragement of use of system in purely negative ways. >There has never been any WBF drive against positive system >development. The ACBL makes exactly the same claim, but, somehow, manages to label any method that their Board of Directors doesn't like as "purely negative" (although they use the terms "constructive"/"destructive" rather than "positive"/"negative"). The WBF undoubtedly means well, and presumably makes sensible system regulations for the events that they run themselves, but their insistence on interpreting L40D as broadly as they do gives carte blanche to SOs to discourage whatever they choose to. In light of what they've let the ACBL get away with (e.g. no conventions allowed over a 9-12 HCP 1NT opening), any claim that they wish to encourage "positive system development" would be hypocritical. 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 Apr 13 02:13:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CGD3804959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:13:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com (juicer38.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3CGCst04921 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:12:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.50]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GBOT9T00.CWI for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:17:53 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-194.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.194]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Commanding-MailRouter V2.9c 17/1085484); 13 Apr 2001 02:12:18 Message-ID: <01ab01c0c36b$40ca7160$c2d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:11:37 +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 Herman de Wael wrote: >The objective there is not to stifle development of system, >but discouragement of use of system in purely negative ways. >There has never been any WBF drive against positive system >development. How about the ban on Yellow Systems at all WBF Junior events including the World Junior Teams Championships? 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 Apr 13 02:31:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CGVGA11206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:31:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3CGV6t11163 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:31:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from AlanLeBendig@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id p.105.1b4d964 (663) for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:30:52 -0400 (EDT) From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com Message-ID: <105.1b4d964.2807323c@aol.com> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:30:52 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_105.1b4d964.2807323c_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_105.1b4d964.2807323c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 5:30:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Grattan writes: > +=+ Hi Alan (et al), > I didn't actually believe u cd get that wrong. What concerned me was the > addition to the plethora of loose expression by which we all manage to > characterize blml. However, I'm not sure we are out of the wood yet. In > making a claim claimer establishes any revoke that has occurred. The act > does > not establish any notional 'revoke' contained in the statement of claim; > the > clarification statement occurs after the claim has been made. The laws make > > it clear that it is an immediately subsequent action. I respectfully disagree, Grattan. And this is clearly our main point of disagreement here. My reading of the Laws makes me believe that Declarer's statement of play to the following tricks is not classified as play subsequent to the claim but clearly a map (if you will) of what is about to happen in his mind. If we feel the claim is flawed in some way, then 70A tells us how to handle it. I see nothing in the Laws that prohibit a declarer from revoking. If he does so, there is a clear penalty for the act. This Declarer clearly stated a line of play that includes a revoke. I realize it wasn't intentional on his part. He clearly was not aware of what was happening. But I think the Laws make it clear that a player pays for these errors. You and others clearly feel that this "revoke" can never become established since there can be no play to subsequent tricks because of the claim. I think it is clear that declarer's statement of play to trick 12 does in fact establish the revoke. And I obviously am not alone here. I don't feel that this play is subsequent to the claim but rather embodied in the claim. The Director does not > allow an illegal play in adjudicating the claim. > When the other side objects to claimer's proposal to ruff a lead > when he has a card of the suit, the Director requires that the proposed > action shall entail play of a legal card > on the lead, and whomsoever it may be then wins the trick, but the revoke > has > not been established and its correction is without penalty. Where is this clarification? The Director > then, and only then, proceeds to consider the proposed play to the following > > trick. > We must observe that a clarification statement is a proposal or a > series of proposals, not a play; the laws specify that play has ceased and > describe the statement as a proposal of the line of play by which the > claimed > I view this statement as tantamount to a play. I think 63A2 backs up this rationale. IF that is the case, then surely you can see why I feel the "revoke" has been established. I agree that play has ceased, but I think the statement of play that will occur has already established any revoke for the claiming side. Please understand that I am willing to award declarer 2 or 3 tricks depending on the location of the KH. This makes the assumption that either the dummy or the declarer will somehow prevent the "revoke" as declarer plays to trick 11. The claim makes it clear declarer intends to play a low heart from dummy. I can even understand awarding all 3 tricks to declarer and deciding that declarer merely misspoke - a slip of the tongue. But I think it is clear that the letter of the Law and the spirit of 70A suggests that this declarer revoked and then established the revoke with his statement of play to trick 11 and 12. Alan LeBendig --part1_105.1b4d964.2807323c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 5:30:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Grattan writes:


+=+ Hi Alan (et al),
I didn't actually believe u cd get that wrong. What concerned me was the  
addition to the plethora of loose expression by which we all manage to  
characterize blml. However, I'm not sure we are out of the wood yet. In  
making a claim claimer establishes any revoke that has occurred. The act
does  
not establish any notional 'revoke' contained in the statement of claim;
the  
clarification statement occurs after the claim has been made. The laws make
 
it clear that it is an immediately subsequent action.


I respectfully disagree, Grattan.  And this is clearly our main point of
disagreement here.  My reading of the Laws makes me believe that Declarer's
statement of play to the following tricks is not classified as play
subsequent to the claim but clearly a map (if you will) of what is about to
happen in his mind.  If we feel the claim is flawed in some way, then 70A
tells us how to handle it.  I see nothing in the Laws that prohibit a
declarer from revoking.  If he does so, there is a clear penalty for the act.
 This Declarer clearly stated a line of play that includes a revoke.  I
realize it wasn't intentional on his part.  He clearly was not aware of what
was happening.  But I think the Laws make it clear that a player pays for
these errors.  You and others clearly feel that this "revoke" can never
become established since there can be no play to subsequent tricks because of
the claim.  I think it is clear that declarer's statement of play to trick 12
does in fact establish the revoke.  And I obviously am not alone here.  I
don't feel that this play is subsequent to the claim but rather embodied in
the claim.

 The Director does not  
allow an illegal play in adjudicating the claim.
When the          other side objects  to claimer's proposal to ruff a lead
when he has a card of the suit, the Director requires that the proposed
action shall entail play of a legal card  
on the lead, and whomsoever it may be then wins the trick, but the revoke
has  
not been established and its correction is without penalty.  


Where is this clarification?

 The Director  

then, and only then, proceeds to consider the proposed play to the following
 
trick.
        We must observe that a clarification statement is a proposal or a  
series of proposals, not a play; the laws specify that play has ceased and  
describe the statement as a proposal of the line of play by which the
claimed  
tricks will be won.


I view this statement as tantamount to a play.  I think 63A2 backs up this
rationale.  IF that is the case, then surely you can see why I feel the
"revoke" has been established.  I agree that play has ceased, but I think the
statement of play that will occur has already established any revoke for the
claiming side.  

Please understand that I am willing to award declarer 2 or 3 tricks depending
on the location of the KH.  This makes the assumption that either the dummy
or the declarer will somehow prevent the "revoke" as declarer plays to trick
11.  The claim makes it clear declarer intends to play a low heart from
dummy.  I can even understand awarding all 3 tricks to declarer and deciding
that declarer merely misspoke - a slip of the tongue.  But I think it is
clear that the letter of the Law and the spirit of 70A suggests that this
declarer revoked and then established the revoke with his statement of play
to trick 11 and 12.

Alan LeBendig
--part1_105.1b4d964.2807323c_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 02:52:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CGpvN16274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:51:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m09.mx.aol.com (imo-m09.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.164]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3CGpnt16231 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:51:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from AlanLeBendig@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id p.30.134285e5 (663) for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:51:32 -0400 (EDT) From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com Message-ID: <30.134285e5.28073714@aol.com> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:51:32 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_30.134285e5.28073714_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_30.134285e5.28073714_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 5:30:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Schoderb@aol.com writes: > Does anyone wish to say that since he was > proposing > a revoke that we are now going to apply the Laws on revokes to something > that > is Law68D "....All play subsequent to a claim or concession SHALL BE VOIDED > > by the Director....." I wish to propose that, Kojak. I don't feel that this is classified as play subsequent to a claim but rather a legal part of the claim. And 63A2 refers to the possibility and allows for this statement to establish the revoke. Are we now proposing that there was no revoke or that a ruling on the claim would invalidate the revoke? I have serious trouble accepting that. I can accept that it would have been prevented had play continued, but the declarer was clearly somewhere else and was going to attempt to revoke. And the Laws don't allow us to stop him. We can only deal with what he said he was about to do. UNLESS we wish to rule that he merely misspoke. I don't feel that was the case. He "saw" a diamond and was playing accordingly. 70A. Seems clear to me, in my simple mind. > > Even though my mind is slightly younger, I could only hope that it would ever be as "simple" as yours. Alan LeBendig --part1_30.134285e5.28073714_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 5:30:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Schoderb@aol.com
writes:


Does anyone wish to say that since he was
proposing  
a revoke that we are now going to apply the Laws on revokes to something
that  
is Law68D "....All play subsequent to a claim or concession SHALL BE VOIDED
 
by the Director....."


I wish to propose that, Kojak.  I don't feel that this is classified as play
subsequent to a claim but rather a legal part of the claim.  And 63A2 refers
to the possibility and allows for this statement to establish the revoke.  
Are we now proposing that there was no revoke or that a ruling on the claim
would invalidate the revoke?  I have serious trouble accepting that.  I can
accept that it would have been prevented had play continued, but the declarer
was clearly somewhere else and was going to attempt to revoke.  And the Laws
don't allow us
to stop him.  We can only deal with what he said he was about to do.  UNLESS
we wish to rule that he merely misspoke.  I don't feel that was the case.  He
"saw" a diamond and was playing accordingly.  70A.    

 Seems clear to me, in my simple mind.


Even though my mind is slightly younger, I could only hope that it would ever
be as "simple" as yours.

Alan LeBendig
--part1_30.134285e5.28073714_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 03:00:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CH0Kc19192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:00:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3CH0Ct19161 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:00:13 +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 MAA21600 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:02:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010412113832.007f1d40@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:38:32 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010412102825.0140bd90@acsys.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:28 AM 4/12/2001 +1000, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >The danger in this discussion is that there creeps in the thought that there >can be play after a claim (in this case directed by the Director). >Specifically the business about stating a line of play that includes a >revoke >makes the claim invalid. Does anyone wish to say that since he was >proposing >a revoke that we are now going to apply the Laws on revokes to something >that >is Law68D "....All play subsequent to a claim or concession SHALL BE VOIDED >by the Director....." >Seems clear to me, in my simple mind. But, again, what do we do about claim cases where a revoke has been established but the revoker has not _yet_ won a trick with a card that could have been played to the revoke trick. It seems obvious to me that we must consider whether he will or will not do so in order to determine how many penalty tricks to award. But if _there is no play after a claim_, then we cannot award two penalty tricks since revoker cannot win another trick with a card that could have been played to the revoke trick, since revoker can no longer play any cards. It seems obvious to me that in this case the tricks the TD awards after a revoke are based on imaginary card-plays, and that all the rules that apply to real card-plays apply to imaginary card-plays. >Regards, > > >Kojak 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 Apr 13 03:14:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CHDlg23265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:13:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3CHDYt23211 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:13:35 +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 NAA07884; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:13:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA116465602; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:13:22 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:13:21 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Re: Laws for players (was Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call) From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kent B.: are you here? Would you have time to edit a "Laws for Players" and put it on the ACBL web site? _______________________________________________________________ I offered to ACBL, more than two years ago, 33 flow charts illustrating chapters 5 to 6 (more usefull Laws). They are made with Powerpoint and can be put on a WEB with links to law texts. I have a French an an English version of them and use them to teach basic laws to beginners. These flow charts are part of a French illustrated book of Laws I sell, this side of the pound, to club directors and to many players. The English version exists but do not have permission to use law texts in America (ACBL copyright). I received some help from ACBL to make sure these charts are right, and was told "it is a great job", but I doubt now they move further. I think such charts could be usefull if "Laws for players" is put on a web. IMHO such a publication should also have examples (not an easy task). 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 Apr 13 03:29:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CHTLu27973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:29:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3CHTDt27935 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:29:14 +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 MAA02860 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:31:31 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010412122809.007bcb00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:28:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: <3AD58281.9B89E585@village.uunet.be> References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010411112334.007fb7e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:25 PM 4/12/2001 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: >> >then we can agree. The ruling should not focus on whether >> >or not claimer has revoked, he hasn't. >> >> I totally disagree. > >With what do you disagree Grant ? With the claim above the one you deleted, namely that what we should be discussing is whether a revoke would be irrational. I think that is totally irrelevant. >Do you think he has revoked ? >No he hasn't, he has claimed. >If anyone is still convinced that this man revoked, let him >speak now or forever remain silent. This is not a revoke >ruling, it is a claim ruling. OK, with that I agree. :) >> The question of whether a revoke is irrational >> or not is irrelevant to this case. I think revokes are irrational, > and yet >> I rule against this declarer [subject to a caveat later]. >> > >On what basis, Grant ? On the basis that, as I say below, whether a claim statement is irrational is legally irrelevant. There is no law that says that irrational claim statements are void. Irrationality is relevant only when we are determining 'normal' play, and normal play is relevant only after we have decided to reject the original line of play and invent a new one. In other words, we have to distinguish between cases in which we are accepting declarer's originally stated line of play, and are disputing only how many tricks that line of play yields, and cases in which declarer's original line of play breaks down, and we're determining which line of play to assign. This case is of the former variety, _if you think declarer really intended to revoke_, and so whether revokes are irrational or not is irrelevant. If you think that declarer _wouldn't really have revoked_, then whether revoke are irrational is irrelevant because you've already determined he's not going to do it. >> Now for my two points: >> a) Some on this thread have spoken as though a player in >> certain circumstances might lose the right to make an amended claim >> statement. IT IS NEVER, EVER, TO A PLAYER'S ADVANTAGE TO MAKE SUCH A >> STATEMENT. If the amended claim statement gives claimer more tricks >> than the worst normal line, then the TD must, by L70c, ignore it. If >> the amended statement is _worse_ than the worst normal line of play, >> declarer may get stuck with it. Ergo, having your claim ruled as if >> you made no statement of clarification is always as good as or better than >> having your claim ruled upon with an original, rejected claim statement >> and a later amendment. > >I tend to disagree. By issuing an immediate correction, one >can often provide the TD with evidence what one was going on >in claimer's mind. >By remaining silent - one gives no such evidence and TD will >rule at his worst. >This claimer has issued a statement (with thanks to Eric for >the argument - it's a good one) that he intends to ruff a >diamond return. >By changing that statement immediately, this claimer has >shown: >a) at which point he realized that the claim statement was >faulty; >b) that he knows how to play the hand in the real situation. > >It can never be to ones disadvantage to have these things >known to the TD and AC. Absent this statement, I would >perhaps also rule that it is possible that claimer would >ruff this trick. With the statement, I can be confident >that there is no such possibility. OK, I should clarify my assertion. I agree that if someone can make a correction to his original claim statement immediately, independent of additional information from the opponents, then that correction has evidentiary value in evaluation the original claim. In effect, by 'correcting' the original claim statement claimer has voided that claim statement and placed himself in a position where his claim will be evaluated as if he had made no statement at all, rather than the original, faulty one. But such a statement can have 'voiding', evidentiary value only. Any new line of play he now states is not binding in any way. Suppose a player in 4H, thinking he has 10 tricks with an immediate diamond ruff, claims, stating that he will ruff the diamond. He then realizes that he cannot ruff a diamond without revoking. He says 'Oh, wait, I guess I will finesse West for the queen of clubs'. If the player had a two-way finesse for that queen, L70D forbids us from allowing him to finesse W for that queen if West really has that Queen! But if East has the Queen, and the contract was actually cold on a squeeze or end-play or in some other way, then the player will be held to his new line. L70D says that any new line of play will be rejected if it works, and therefore may be accepted only if it fails. Hence, you should never state a new line of play, although you might be advised to reject flaws in your original line if you can do so immediately. >We should be dealing with this claim as if there has been no >claim statement, but with the added knowledge of what >claimer knows about the hand. In other words, claimer's statement can count as evidence that he didn't really mean his original claim statement, but cannot have any positive effect on the TD's determination from then on. >> b) The question of whether a play is normal or irrational applies >> only to _alternative lines of play imagined by the TD_, never to the >> original claim statement or to an amended claim statement. Hence, even >> if revokes are irrational, we still allow them if they are part of the >> original claim statement or an amended claim statement. >> > >Indeed we do. >If we are in a situation where it is possible for claimer to >continue on his stated line without remarking that it is >irrational. >I offer the "strange claim" as an example. In it, the >claimer made a hasty statement, and it was clear that if he >was going to execute it, he could never embark on the line >without noticing that it was very inferior. The general >consensus was that we would not hold declarer to a literal >execution of his claim statement, even when, by a quirk of >fate, it was the only winning line. We agree, then. If declarer states an irrational line of play, he is held to that line of play until the point where it would have become obvious to him that it was irrational. Plays to the very first trick after the claim will rarely fall into that category, however, although I agree that the TD may be convinced by an immediate correction not signalled by the opponents. >To return to this original, if declarer were to have >indicated that he did not know he still had a heart, I would >indeed rule that it would be possible for him to revoke. >But here, I am convinced that the statement was a slip of >the tongue and I believe there is not even the slightest >possibility that this claimer would in actual fact revoke. I respect that position. I might have ruled that way, in fact. Let us be clear, then that we have three arguments against the revoke: a) Revokes are irrational, and no irrational plays are allowed after a claim. b) There are no plays of any kind after a claim, ergo there cannot be any revokes. c) _This_ revoke should be disallowed, because declarer's statement convinces us that _this_ declarer wouldn't really have revoked. We have agreed that 'a' is incorrect. We seem to agree that 'b' is incorrect, although it seems to be defended by everyone on the "schroderb" machine. 'C' is not a theoretical matter, but a matter for the TD at the table. [snip] >But indeed, this is not an irrational line to this declarer. More precisely, this declarer _doesn't yet realize_ that this line of play is irrational. >OK Grant, I believe we agree on the basics for this ruling. >We do not agree on the interpretation that we need to give >to the claim statement, and that is something we cannot >resolve between us. > >You are allowed to sit in my corner, even if our actual >rulings would differ. > >Welcome. > >Too bad we don't have David Burn here in our corner to amuse >us with his tales. At least his corner is close enough to ours that we can probably still hear him from there. >Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 04:23:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CINKP05207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:23:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3CIN4t05203 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:23:05 +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 LAA24093; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:22:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200104121822.LAA24093@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:51:32 EDT." <30.134285e5.28073714@aol.com> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:22:36 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: > In a message dated 4/11/01 5:30:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Schoderb@aol.com > writes: > > > > Does anyone wish to say that since he was proposing > > a revoke that we are now going to apply the Laws on revokes to something > > that is Law68D "....All play subsequent to a claim or concession SHALL > > BE VOIDED by the Director....." > > I wish to propose that, Kojak. I don't feel that this is classified as play > subsequent to a claim but rather a legal part of the claim. And 63A2 refers > to the possibility and allows for this statement to establish the revoke. > Are we now proposing that there was no revoke or that a ruling on the claim > would invalidate the revoke? I have serious trouble accepting that. I can > accept that it would have been prevented had play continued, but the > declarer > was clearly somewhere else and was going to attempt to revoke. And the Laws > don't allow us > to stop him. We can only deal with what he said he was about to do. UNLESS > we wish to rule that he merely misspoke. I don't feel that was the > case. He "saw" a diamond and was playing accordingly. 70A. > > > Seems clear to me, in my simple mind. > > Even though my mind is slightly younger, I could only hope that it > would ever be as "simple" as yours. To my mind, this is why it's clear that we need to draw a distinction between "actual" and "hypothetical" (or "imaginary", if you prefer) play, as I've tried to argue in a couple previous posts. L68D is clear that play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided. Therefore, it's clear that after a claim, there can be no ACTUAL play and therefore no ACTUAL revoke. But it's reasonable to suggest that in a hypothetical line of play, declarer would have committed a hypothetical revoke [1], and might have continued the hypothetical play in such as way as to hypothetically establish the revoke. In that case, we'd apply a hypothetical two-trick penalty to the hypothetical score. This hypothetical (imagined) stuff is all relevant, of course, because the very essence of adjudicating a disputed claim is that we imagine hypothetical lines of play [2] and award, as the claimer's *actual* score, the least-favorable hypothetical score from the hypothetical lines we imagine. Thus: (1) L68D cannot apply to the hypothetical revoke, because L68D serves only to cancel *actual* play that actually occurred after the claim; it cannot cancel the hypothetical play; (2) L63A3 cannot apply to the hypothetical revoke, since no claim would have occurred to establish the revoke in the hypothetical subsequent play; (3) L64B3 cannot apply to the hypothetical revoke, since in the hypothetical subsequent play, claimer's cards were not faced. I realize that the Laws don't say anything about "hypothetical" or "imaginary" lines of play, but I firmly believe that it's implicit in L70A . . . how else are we supposed to adjudicate claims, other than to imagine what was going to happen? To my simple mind, recognizing the difference between the "actual" and the "hypothetical", and keeping the two separate in our minds, is the only way out of the morass. Much of the argument here stems from the fact that some posters are not keeping the two separate. Hope this helps, -- Adam Note [1]: We normally don't include revokes in the lines of play we imagine after a claim; this case is different because declarer specifically stated he would play a card that would necessarily be a revoke. Note [2]: Specifically, we imagine those lines of play that are consistent with the claim statement but do not introduce any new irrational play not explicitly stated in the claim. It's my belief that if the claim statement explicitly includes something we'd consider irrational (including a revoke), we hold claimer to it anyway. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 04:28:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CIFod05158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:15:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3CIFbt05150 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:15:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-003.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.195]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA29945 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:15:27 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:16:10 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0C385.08624AE0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:16:09 +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 N E S W 1NT ... ... p p p L34 says When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. The auction reverts to the player who missed his turn. All subsequent passes are cancelled, and the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. When I started this thread I did think that the ''player who missed his turn'' was South but Ton and others have said that East has also missed his turn and indeed tell us that this Law is unambiguous. Please let us agree that it is ambiguous? Anyway my main point of posting was to clarify if ''the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity'', is as easy as all that. 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 Apr 13 05:26:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CJQ0o05505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 05:26:00 +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 (f30.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.30]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3CJPst05501 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 05:25:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:25:47 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:25:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:25:47 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Apr 2001 19:25:47.0927 (UTC) FILETIME=[608D2270:01C0C386] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >I realize that the Laws don't say anything about "hypothetical" or >"imaginary" lines of play, but I firmly believe that it's implicit in >L70A . . . how else are we supposed to adjudicate claims, other than >to imagine what was going to happen? > >To my simple mind, recognizing the difference between the "actual" and >the "hypothetical", and keeping the two separate in our minds, is the >only way out of the morass. Much of the argument here stems from the >fact that some posters are not keeping the two separate. We also need to end the witchhunt to impose as many penalties as we think could have been levied. The scope of the laws clearly says that penalties are assigned primarily as redress for damage rather than punishment. NOS are only entitled to their pre-infraction equity. Anything they get in addition is a bonus. *The revoke penalty itself is not part of their equity.*1 Some people seem to believe and are arguing as though NOS are insufficiently compensated by not receiving the revoke penalty in this case, but that's not true. -Todd 1. Also applies to these situations: )revoke then claim before the fate of the card-that-could-have-been-played is decided. )second revoke in the same suit regains par on the penalty. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Apr 13 06:00:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CK06G05613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 06:00:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3CJxvt05605 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 05:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:56:06 -0700 Message-ID: <006401c0c38b$1c926300$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Re: Laws for players (was Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:53:49 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: > > Kent B.: are you here? Would you have time to edit a "Laws for > Players" and put it on the ACBL web site? > _______________________________________________________________ > > I offered to ACBL, more than two years ago, 33 flow charts > illustrating chapters 5 to 6 (more usefull Laws). They are > made with Powerpoint and can be put on a WEB with links > to law texts. I have a French an an English version of them > and use them to teach basic laws to beginners. These flow > charts are part of a French illustrated book of Laws I > sell, this side of the pound, to club directors and to > many players. The English version exists but do not have > permission to use law texts in America (ACBL copyright). > I believe the European version of the Laws is not copyrighted, so you can use that text. Even the short excerpts we quote on BLML are copyright offenses, if they come from the ACBL or other copyrighted versions of the Laws. The copyright notice says that no portion of the Laws may be reproduced in any form without written permission. Tsk, tsk. Why would the officialdom of any game want to forbid the free copying of its rules? Doesn't that help promote the game? 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 Apr 13 06:16:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CKG7805638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 06:16:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta05-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3CKG1t05634 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 06:16:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta05-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.03.02.00 201-232-124 license f747fce8063b429e7fcd66ee14ce8c58) with SMTP id <20010412201812.VOGT3491.amsmta05-svc@witz> for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 22:18:12 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010412221558.010ef568@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: a.witzen/mail.chello.nl@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 22:15:58 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? In-Reply-To: <01C0C385.08624AE0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:16 PM 12-04-01 +0100, you wrote: > N E S W > 1NT ... ... p > p p > > L34 says > >When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end >when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a player >of his right to call at that turn. The auction reverts to the player who >missed his turn. All subsequent passes are cancelled, and the auction >proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. > > When I started this thread I did think that the ''player who missed his turn'' was South > but Ton and others have said that East has also missed his turn and indeed tell us that this Law is unambiguous. > > Please let us agree that it is ambiguous? > > Anyway my main point of posting was to clarify if ''the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity'', > is as easy as all that. > it looks rather simple i think. a) there have been 3 passes in order, the first one being out of rotation. b) one (or more) player(s) have missed their turn to bid in sequence according to L17C c) all subsequent passes including the POOT (three of them) are cancelled d) conclusion: its E turn to bid e) the question indeed is if the pass of W is UI for E since there hasnt been any irregularity according L34. This is the way we learn it our students for years regards, anton > 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/ > > 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 Apr 13 06:35:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CKXAd05702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 06:33:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3CKX3t05697 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 06:33:04 +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 QAA07894 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:33:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA17530 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:33:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:33:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104122033.QAA17530@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: Laws for players (was Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Even the short excerpts we quote on BLML are copyright offenses, if > they come from the ACBL or other copyrighted versions of the Laws. > The copyright notice says that no portion of the Laws may be > reproduced in any form without written permission. Tsk, tsk. They may say that, but I don't believe they can enforce it. Look up "doctrine of fair use." (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and the above is not legal advice.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 07:56:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CLtaq05900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 07:55:36 +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 f3CLtUt05896 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 07:55:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3CF6j700231 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:06:45 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: Re: Laws for players (was Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:59:02 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <006401c0c38b$1c926300$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006401c0c38b$1c926300$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01041215064500.00176@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > Even the short excerpts we quote on BLML are copyright offenses, if > they come from the ACBL or other copyrighted versions of the Laws. > The copyright notice says that no portion of the Laws may be > reproduced in any form without written permission. Tsk, tsk. What is quoted on BLML and elsewhere probably falls under the legal definition of fair use. Almost all copyrighted works have this restriction written, but it can only apply to copying for which the holder can reserve the right. Short quotes for purposes of commentary which do not damage the market value of the work are likely to be considered fair use. > Why would the officialdom of any game want to forbid the free > copying of its rules? Doesn't that help promote the game? The official rules are not really needed to play the game informally, and this allows the organization to profit from selling or licensing sales. Baseball does the same thing; the official rules of major league baseball are copyrighted. -- 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 Apr 13 12:00:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3D1wOP26900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:58:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cerium ([194.73.73.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3D1vwt26821 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:58:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.96.78] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14nVzC-0002Ed-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:33:27 +0100 Message-ID: <006301c0c2f0$7bb56940$4e607ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <005b01c0c20d$88ed7280$da4a073e@pbncomputer> <3AD416A0.CCA49C29@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:32:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > So you agree, David, that this is a claim, not necessarily a > revoke ? No, of course I don't. I think that this is a claim that includes a revoke. I think that it should be treated as if the claimer actually did what he said he was going to do, which was to revoke. I think that if a man says he will play a spade on a heart lead when he has a heart, and then lead a club to the next trick, he should be treated in exactly the same way as a man who actually plays a spade on a heart lead when he has a heart, and then leads a club to the next trick. I have no idea what I may have said which would lead any rational human being to hold a contrary view of my opinion, but if I have expressed myself ambiguously, I apologise, and hope that the foregoing makes my position entirely clear. > In that case, I think we may cease the discussion, since it > is very well known what you think about claims. What I think about claims really does not matter. In this case, the claimer stated, in a fashion of which I entirely approve, exactly what tricks he proposed to win and exactly the order in which he intended to play both his and dummy's cards. Unfortunately, he was labouring under a misapprehension about the card that had in fact been led to trick 11. He should suffer the consequences of that misapprehension exactly in the way in which he would have suffered them had he been required to play instead of claiming. > I am very happy to see that you are continually harsh on > claims. This, as I have said, has nothing to do with what I think about claims as such. You, and everybody else, tell me that claims are a jolly good thing without which the gane of bridge would be so slow as to be impossible. Because of this, you invariably allow people who claim to make more tricks than they would have made had they instead been required to play. In order to bolster this particular insanity, you have made a distinction between a "claim statement" and a "claim"; this distinction makes absolutely no sense at all, but it appears to have gained credence among the subscribers to this list. I am not harsh on claims, but I am very harsh on people who believe (contrary to Law) that doubtful points should be resolved in favour of the claimer rather than against him, simply because claims are such wonderful things. > However, that does not solve the problem that I have with > other posters, notably DWS, who are not as burnianly harsh > on all claims but who seem to be ruling against this claimer > anyway. Herman, "this claimer anyway" was at least one down (assuming that East had the king of hearts, but for the sake of argument, it may as well be assumed that East could beat South's heart). As I said in my reply to Adam, I believe that he ought to be two down, but I would be prepared to go along with one down. I repeat: this ruling has got nothing to do with what I think about claims. 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 Apr 13 13:22:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3D3Lnt23141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:21:49 +1000 (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 f3D3Lat23136 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:21:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.48.59]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:17:47 -0700 Message-ID: <009501c0c3c8$d1711ae0$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <006401c0c38b$1c926300$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <01041215064500.00176@psa836> Subject: Re: Re: Laws for players (was Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:13:21 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David J Grabiner" > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > Even the short excerpts we quote on BLML are copyright offenses, if > > they come from the ACBL or other copyrighted versions of the Laws. > > The copyright notice says that no portion of the Laws may be > > reproduced in any form without written permission. Tsk, tsk. > > What is quoted on BLML and elsewhere probably falls under the legal > definition of fair use. Almost all copyrighted works have this > restriction written, but it can only apply to copying for which the > holder can reserve the right. Short quotes for purposes of commentary > which do not damage the market value of the work are likely to be > considered fair use. Some BLML commentary might "damage the market value"! :) > > > Why would the officialdom of any game want to forbid the free > > copying of its rules? Doesn't that help promote the game? > > The official rules are not really needed to play the game informally, Some people like to play by the rules of whatever game they are playing. My many tennis-playing friends play informally, but they play by the rules. > and this allows the organization to profit from selling or licensing > sales. I would think the ACBL would be more interested in promoting the game than in making money on book sales. This reminds me of the one-year lag between the issuance of the 1997 Laws and their publication on the ACBL website. When I inquired about this, I was told that the publisher would not permit them to be published on the website until publication costs had been recouped from book sales. And who was the publisher? The ACBL! The current (1993) rubber bridge laws did not make it to the ACBL website until 1998. I have been unable to find either set of Laws in major bookstores. Amazon.com lists only the 1975 version of the duplicate Laws, which is "Out of Print." For the rubber bridge laws it lists the 1981 edition, also "Out of Print." Barnes and Noble refers to a 1988 *Laws of Duplicate Bridge*, "not currently stocked." I am not familiar with that book, which was published by Crown Publishers, who published the ACBL versions before the ACBL started publishing themselves. Crown distributed the 1975 version, but later versions have been published *and* distributed by the ACBL. There doesn't seem to be much "distributing" going on these days, considering the large number of bridge players in ACBL-land. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA I think the ACBL needs a PR department. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 13:44:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3D3iBC23220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:44:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3D3i3t23216 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:44:04 +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 f3D3fRT22756 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010412122809.007bcb00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010411112334.007fb7e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010412122809.007bcb00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:41:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:28 PM -0500 4/12/01, Grant Sterling wrote: >L70D says that any new line of play will be rejected if it >works, and therefore may be accepted only if it fails Not the way I read it. It says "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful." To me, this means that if claimer proposes a new line, TD must determine if there are less successful normal alternatives. If there aren't, the new line is to be accepted, *whether it is successful or not.* Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOtZ1/72UW3au93vOEQLsrgCePcyNP8rVdGi/gYBOVnZbeUahNTUAn141 xKdsvrVvUhkNYbQclbvZx1H+ =1FFO -----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 Apr 13 14:04:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3D449623300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:04:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3D43ot23291 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:03:51 +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 f3D41Nw29956 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:01:23 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200104121822.LAA24093@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200104121822.LAA24093@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:02:30 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:22 AM -0700 4/12/01, Adam Beneschan wrote: >This hypothetical (imagined) stuff is all relevant, of course, because >the very essence of adjudicating a disputed claim is that we imagine >hypothetical lines of play [2] and award, as the claimer's *actual* >score, the least-favorable hypothetical score from the hypothetical >lines we imagine. We do? I was under the impression that the two sides of this issue were: (1) Declarer has stated a line of play that includes a revoke, therefor we rule that he did revoke, the revoke being established by his intended subsequent play. (2) Declarer has stated a line of play that includes a revoke, revokes are illegal, and so we can't allow him that line of play. Declarer now states a new, legal line of play. Perhaps there's a third side, like (2), except that we don't allow declarer to state a new line of play, and we treat the claim as one without a stated line of play. To me, that third line is absurd. Nothing in the laws supports it, as far as I can see. If the proper ruling is (1) (and I'm not saying it is) then the score he gets is the one that would have resulted from the stated line of play - iirc, he gets the last three tricks, and then two are transferred to defenders. If (2) is the proper ruling, then the question asked by law 70 is "is there an alternative normal line of play that gives declarer a worse result than this new statement?" If the answer is no, then his new statement is accepted. If the answer is "yes, there is one" then *that* line is followed to the score. If there's more than one, well, it doesn't look to me like the law says we *have* to go with the worst result. In fact, it requires us to rule "as equitably as possible to *both* sides, resolving doubtful points against the claimer" (emphasis mine). That seems to me quite different from "he gets the least favorable score." At least, that's what the words I'm reading in the laws mean 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/AwUBOtZ6or2UW3au93vOEQKqQACfZuwODhcLvDIWxkZV9aYjZk2emB8AmwW/ vovwDnZWMAcxQUTozpKTycLD =id44 -----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 Apr 13 17:59:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3D7wQo09628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:58:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3D7vkt09606 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:57:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.160]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3D7ven12314 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:57:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD5833B.B18D1D8E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:28:11 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104101410.KAA29252@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010411114321.007f0100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > > Still unable to find a way to disagree with DB about this claim, > Grant Sterling Sorry Grant, you may agree with David Burn on the result of this ruling, but I don't believe you agree with him on the mechanics of it. As shown in my other post. If you really want to go and sit in David's corner, do so. But you'd be in the wrong corner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 17:59:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3D7wQ609630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:58:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3D7vmt09609 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:57:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.160]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3D7vhn12336 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:57:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD58594.BE1166F6@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:38:12 +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] claiming a revoke References: <26.13d680cd.2805dd48@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Now Alan does it too, so I must copy. from Alan : And that is why I see Herman's arguments as invalid here. I do understand what you are saying, Herman. But I believe that this declarer did not have a slip of the tongue. I believe he saw a diamond and was about to ruff it, as he said. It has been suggested that this would be irrational and therefore we would not allow it. But how could we ever say it is irrational if the declarer's mind is somewhere else? I have made more than one irrational bid and there was no way to stop it from happening. Sometimes our mind takes a vacation and we can't stop that. When that has happened, I firmly believe that we must pay for that. And I think our Laws clearly require that we pay for these slips of the mind. I have no reason to believe that declarer's mind was going to return by the time this trick got to him. But I am certain that he was going to play low from dummy - therefore I am comfortable in giving the defense one trick IF the KH is located on his right. I would not be at all upset if one of my directors ruled that a revoke has ocurred. I actually think I may prefer that. And I think that David Bs explanation of "why" mirrors my thinking here. end quote HDW: Eric provided us with the best analysis. This declarer issued a claim statement that should be read as "I'll ruff the diamond return". There is nothing to suggest that this player does not know he still holds a heart, and that he intends to ruff a heart return. I do believe that this is clear. Now to ruff the first trick is an irrational line, if we allow declarer to notice that a heart has been led. I do believe we can even agree to that. So the question remains as to the exact moment we allow declarer to notice that a heart has been led. For this, we need more evidence than we currently have. >From the case as presented, I deduced that declarer noticed it was a heart, unaided, and immediately after issuing his claim statement. That is why I rule three tricks to him. Now I might have deduced wrongly, or the facts may have been presented insufficiently well. Then I don't discard the possibility that my ruling would be different. But I really don't believe so. For what it's worth, I agree that with the King of Hearts off-side, it becomes a closer call. I might well rule that it is possible that claimer wakes up between playing low from dummy and "ruffing". Has anybody told us why declarer saw a diamond when a heart was played? Did that really happen? I refuse to believe that this is the true case. I prefer to believe that declarer saw something red, did not look to closely and thought it was a diamond - so he claimed thinking it was a diamond. But he never really saw a diamond. Don't you believe that this is the most logical explanation for the happenings at that table? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 17:59:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3D7wQI09629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:58:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3D7vit09604 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:57:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.160]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3D7vYn12254 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:57:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD58281.9B89E585@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:25:05 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010411112334.007fb7e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > I want to focus on two key points here, in hope that we can at > least arrive at agreement on one of them! Please let me know if you > think my interpretations of law are incorrect! > > >then we can agree. The ruling should not focus on whether > >or not claimer has revoked, he hasn't. > > I totally disagree. With what do you disagree Grant ? Do you think he has revoked ? No he hasn't, he has claimed. If anyone is still convinced that this man revoked, let him speak now or forever remain silent. This is not a revoke ruling, it is a claim ruling. > The question of whether a revoke is irrational > or not is irrelevant to this case. I think revokes are irrational, > and yet > I rule against this declarer [subject to a caveat later]. > On what basis, Grant ? > Now for my two points: > a) Some on this thread have spoken as though a player in > certain circumstances might lose the right to make an amended claim > statement. IT IS NEVER, EVER, TO A PLAYER'S ADVANTAGE TO MAKE SUCH A > STATEMENT. If the amended claim statement gives claimer more tricks > than the worst normal line, then the TD must, by L70c, ignore it. If > the amended statement is _worse_ than the worst normal line of play, > declarer may get stuck with it. Ergo, having your claim ruled as if > you made no statement of clarification is always as good as or better than > having your claim ruled upon with an original, rejected claim statement > and a later amendment. I tend to disagree. By issuing an immediate correction, one can often provide the TD with evidence what one was going on in claimer's mind. By remaining silent - one gives no such evidence and TD will rule at his worst. This claimer has issued a statement (with thanks to Eric for the argument - it's a good one) that he intends to ruff a diamond return. By changing that statement immediately, this claimer has shown: a) at which point he realized that the claim statement was faulty; b) that he knows how to play the hand in the real situation. It can never be to ones disadvantage to have these things known to the TD and AC. Absent this statement, I would perhaps also rule that it is possible that claimer would ruff this trick. With the statement, I can be confident that there is no such possibility. We should be dealing with this claim as if there has been no claim statement, but with the added knowledge of what claimer knows about the hand. > b) The question of whether a play is normal or irrational applies > only to _alternative lines of play imagined by the TD_, never to the > original claim statement or to an amended claim statement. Hence, even > if revokes are irrational, we still allow them if they are part of the > original claim statement or an amended claim statement. > Indeed we do. If we are in a situation where it is possible for claimer to continue on his stated line without remarking that it is irrational. I offer the "strange claim" as an example. In it, the claimer made a hasty statement, and it was clear that if he was going to execute it, he could never embark on the line without noticing that it was very inferior. The general consensus was that we would not hold declarer to a literal execution of his claim statement, even when, by a quirk of fate, it was the only winning line. To return to this original, if declarer were to have indicated that he did not know he still had a heart, I would indeed rule that it would be possible for him to revoke. But here, I am convinced that the statement was a slip of the tongue and I believe there is not even the slightest possibility that this claimer would in actual fact revoke. Please from now on, those of you who still want to withold any trick from declarer, do one of the folowing : - if you believe this declarer must be judged to revoke because he said he did, then go sit in one corner and don't bother me any more - if you believe this is a claim, and that declarer is held to his statement because that is what he said he would do, then go sit in another corner and have a pleasant time chatting to David Burn there - if on the other hand you find there is a large enough possibility that this declarer would revoke in real life, despite of his announcement to the contrary, then please find two other AC members to vote against me on that. But at least you are within a correct grasp of the laws. > Consider the following, non-revoke case: > Contract: 7NT > Lead in South. All non-spades have been played, with declarer > taking all 10 tricks. > > S AQ2 > > S J43 S T65 > > S K87 > > Declarer claims, saying "I will lead my King, overtaking it in > dummy with the Ace, and play the Queen and two." > This line of play is, IMHO, patently irrational. It doesn't > matter. The opponents will object that the given line of play yields > only two tricks, not three. Do you, as TD's, award declarer three tricks > on the grounds that his play is irrational? I do not--I say that we follow > his original claim statement until it breaks down, even if it is irrational. Indeed. Completely correct. I doubt if we can really find a case like this, without some explanation as to why this would happen. Perhaps declarer has dropped the 2 small spades on the ground and thinks they are not-high clubs. But indeed, this is not an irrational line to this declarer. > The claim statement breaks down at trick 13, when defenders win the trick. > Down 1. And I'm _nice_ to claimers. > > Ergo, an irrational play can be held against claimer if it is > part of his original claim statement. [And, depending on how you read > the law, possibly if it is part of an amended claim statement.] > Yes it can. But that does not mean the original one should. We should always try and find out WHY the claimer included an irrational line in his statement, and then determine when -to him- the irrationality would be revealed. > >If you want to argue that it would be merely "inferior", not > >"irrational" to revoke, then by all means do. > > I do not. If we argue that, then when determining the result > of a disputed claim the TD must imagine possible lines of play not stated > by declarer that include revokes, and I regard this as patently absurd. > Revokes are irrational. It's just that I don't think that fact is > relevant to this case. > > >I myself would favor an interpretation by which revoking is > >always irrational, except in those circumstances where it > >involves hidden cards or such. > > Agreed. > > >The fact that declarer has stated a line which includes a > >revoke can be an indication, but never a proof, that > >declarer is considering revoking. > > > >Myself, I prefer to believe that this declarer has claimed > >without looking what the card was that was played. > > > >But such things are for the TD to determine. > > Here I agree, and this was my caveat. If the TD decides that > this player _wouldn't really have revoked had the hand been played > out_, that is, if he rules that the player would have realized that his > claim statement had broken down immediately after playing the first > card, then he can rule differently. I can imagine giving such a ruling > in some cases. The 'lead from the wrong hand' cases, I think, are much > less likely to be ruled this way--surely that mistake wouldn't be > caught until too late. > OK Grant, I believe we agree on the basics for this ruling. We do not agree on the interpretation that we need to give to the claim statement, and that is something we cannot resolve between us. You are allowed to sit in my corner, even if our actual rulings would differ. Welcome. Too bad we don't have David Burn here in our corner to amuse us with his tales. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 17:59:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3D7wTM09631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:58:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3D7vot09614 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:57:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.160]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3D7vkn12350 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:57:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD586CA.90ABE5CC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:43:22 +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] claiming a revoke References: <3.0.32.20010412102825.0140bd90@acsys.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kojak "by way of Markus Buchhorn " wrote: > > > BUT, this is not about revokes at all. It is about a situation clearly and > completely handled by LAW 70 A CLAIM that has been contested by the > opponents. So here goes. > > Why contested? Could be because of impossible plays, leads from the wrong > hand, miscounting of cards (including trumps usually), revoke as part of > claim, etc. What-have-you. But for sure because the opponents don't think > claimer can get what he wants by following his statement(s). > The TD follows the Law in 70B. If trumps not involved or new line stated, > or > unstated, he then goes back to A and does what it says. Since there is no > further play (see Law68D) from the point of claim there is no play to > permit, > adjust, forbid, insist upon, etc. The TD decides whether the contesting of > the claim was valid, whether the claim itself was valid, and then awards > tricks giving any doubtful ones to the non-claimant. PERIOD! > The danger in this discussion is that there creeps in the thought that there > can be play after a claim (in this case directed by the Director). > Specifically the business about stating a line of play that includes a > revoke > makes the claim invalid. Does anyone wish to say that since he was > proposing > a revoke that we are now going to apply the Laws on revokes to something > that > is Law68D "....All play subsequent to a claim or concession SHALL BE VOIDED > by the Director....." > Seems clear to me, in my simple mind. > > Regards, > > Kojak Thanks for clearly stating this. Anyone who still refuses to treat this as a claim should by now be sitting in a corner. However, Kojak, You do not tell us how you'd rule. Is this because you think it is obvious or because you hate to commit yourself on partial data ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 19:43:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3D9gBZ18536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 19:42:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3D9fdt18475 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 19:41:41 +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 LAA23394; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:40:46 +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 LAA18620; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:40:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010413114419.00826100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:44:19 +0200 To: "James Vickers" , "David Stevenson" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] logical alternatives In-Reply-To: <009801c0c2c7$a2083060$205c883e@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:35 11/04/01 +0100, James Vickers wrote: What Alain and others seem to be saying >is that there are two alternative actions: double (40%) and "not-double" >(60%). "Not-double" now becomes a logical alternative and the score may be >adjusted as the offender could have chosen "not-double". Unfortunately >"not-double" is not an action, it is the sum of many different actions, >and it is clear from the Laws and the TD Guide that "logical alternative" >refers to _a call or play_ and not all other conceivable calls or plays in >their entirety, however much you may wish it were otherwise. bring >pass into the running. If the alternatives were now: double (60%), pass >(20%), 3C (20%), would you still cancel the double? say? really >so difficult to understand, David? AG : not very difficult, but plain wrong. What you are saying is that a player choose a bid that about half the players would do, and that this bid was suggested by partner's action, ie absent the UI he might well have done otherwise. In such a case, it should be obvious that he may not do it. The fact that several actions were possible does not mean you are allowed to make the most offensive one. 'twould be too easy. 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 Apr 13 20:23:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3DANT529251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:23:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3DANHt29186 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:23:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-199.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.199]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3DANAn15397 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:23:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD6B9A3.F26DF279@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:32:35 +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] Timing of TD call References: <01ab01c0c36b$40ca7160$c2d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > > Herman de Wael wrote: > >The objective there is not to stifle development of system, > >but discouragement of use of system in purely negative ways. > >There has never been any WBF drive against positive system > >development. > > How about the ban on Yellow Systems at all WBF Junior > events including the World Junior Teams Championships? > > Peter Gill > Australia. > This discussion has gone very off topic. My original point was that the WBF have never stifled positive systems development. Proof : system errors are dealt with rather gently - apart from the redress for opponent's damage through misinformation, there is no penalty for error. Similarly, I felt that the way the Laws deal with late alerts falls in that same philosophy. That is not the same as system regulation, which deals rather with negative system development. But this thread is not the place to start a discussion on that topic. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 13 20:23:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3DANYM29284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:23:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3DANIt29198 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:23:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-199.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.199]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3DANEn15464 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:23:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD6BAF4.E11FAA54@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:38:12 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010411112334.007fb7e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010412122809.007bcb00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Just a small correction to something : Grant Sterling wrote: > > > Suppose a player in 4H, thinking he has 10 tricks with an > immediate diamond ruff, claims, stating that he will ruff the > diamond. He then realizes that he cannot ruff a diamond without > revoking. He says 'Oh, wait, I guess I will finesse West for > the queen of clubs'. If the player had a two-way finesse for that > queen, L70D forbids us from allowing him to finesse W for that queen > if West really has that Queen! But if East has the Queen, and the > contract was actually cold on a squeeze or end-play or in some other > way, then the player will be held to his new line. > L70D says that any new line of play will be rejected if it > works, and therefore may be accepted only if it fails. Hence, you > should never state a new line of play, although you might be advised > to reject flaws in your original line if you can do so immediately. > But Grant, if the declarer in 4He says nothing, he will also be ruled against. At least allow him to make the evidentiary statement, which will be taken as such - evidence. It can never cost him, and sometimes gain - so why not allow him to do so ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 14 01:02:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3DF1Ut00787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:01:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3DF1Mt00783 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:01:23 +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 f3DF1Ha98215 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010413104138.00b44320@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, 13 Apr 2001 11:02:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: <006301c0c2f0$7bb56940$4e607ad5@pbncomputer> References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <005b01c0c20d$88ed7280$da4a073e@pbncomputer> <3AD416A0.CCA49C29@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 09:32 PM 4/11/01, David wrote: >What I think about claims really does not matter. In this case, the >claimer stated, in a fashion of which I entirely approve, exactly what >tricks he proposed to win and exactly the order in which he intended to >play both his and dummy's cards. Unfortunately, he was labouring under a >misapprehension about the card that had in fact been led to trick 11. He >should suffer the consequences of that misapprehension exactly in the >way in which he would have suffered them had he been required to play >instead of claiming. But this is also the argument for the opposite position. Had he been required to play instead of claiming, the consequence of his misapprehension might have been a loss of two tricks, one trick (assuming the HK in E), or nil, depending on when he realized that W had led a heart rather than a diamond. Therefore the TD/AC must make a determination as to when he would have realized this (giving the benefit of the doubt to the other side, so he loses two tricks unless it is deemed not at all probable that he would have failed to notice before revoking and leading to trick 12). Having done so, they are in a position to apply L70 as I have previously suggested, holding it to be "'normal'" (albeit certainly "careless or inferior") for the claimer to ruff a heart which he believes to be a diamond, but "irrational" to ruff a heart which he (now) realizes is a heart. In the case at hand, the TD/AC may, and should, decide that he would have noticed that W had actually led a heart before he played from dummy, because he did so (on his own), rather than hold him to the precise wording of his original, unamended statement. 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 Apr 14 02:50:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3DGnVs00986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 02:49:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3DGnNt00982 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 02:49:24 +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 LAA07690 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:51:35 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010413114810.007bda00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:48:10 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010412122809.007bcb00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010411112334.007fb7e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010412122809.007bcb00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:41 PM 4/12/2001 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 12:28 PM -0500 4/12/01, Grant Sterling wrote: >>L70D says that any new line of play will be rejected if it >>works, and therefore may be accepted only if it fails > >Not the way I read it. It says "The Director shall not accept from >claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original >clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of >play that would be less successful." > >To me, this means that if claimer proposes a new line, TD must >determine if there are less successful normal alternatives. If there >aren't, the new line is to be accepted, *whether it is successful or >not.* OK, I am guilty of a shorthand. I make a claim statement. Opponents object. I now state a new line of play not embraced in my original claim statement. The TD figures out the worst possible result from all 'normal' lines of play. Let us say that this worst result is 'n' tricks. If my line of play makes _more_ than 'n' tricks, it is rejected, and 'n' becomes my score. If it makes exactly 'n' tricks, then it is accepted, and 'n' becomes my score. It it makes _less_ than 'n' tricks [either because the TD hadn't thought of a way to play the hand that badly on his own, or because the TD judges that playing a hand that badly is irrational and not merely careless or inferior, then the new line of play is accepted (or may be accepted, anyway--the law doesn't say what to do in this situation), and I get 'Regards, > >Ed Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 14 02:55:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3DGtgE01022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 02:55:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3DGtYt01018 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 02:55:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-99.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.99]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0052C22E0E8 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:55:27 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Double revoke/What is equity...? Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:52:53 +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 Tim West-meads (Wed 11 Apr 2001 09:28) writes: >bramble@ukonline.co.uk wrote: >> L64C does not refer to "tricks" - it is not directly concerned with >> them. It charges the director with determining whether the NOS has been >> "sufficiently compensated" by the provisions of L64A/B "for the damage >> caused" and, if he deems not, "assigning an adjusted score". > >Indeed. But NOS got more tricks after the transfer than they would have >done if there had been no revokes so the TD is perfectly at liberty to >determine that NOS were not damaged. This is, I think, the crux of the matter. Your use of "... if there had been no revokes ..." effectively treats the two revokes as one (and thereby helps to protect the OS from mistakes made in the inter-revoke period). L64C however starts "When, after any established revoke ... ", which it seems clear to me means that this Law is to apply separately to *any* revokes. >> >As to why we should treat this way firstly there are indications that >> >was the intent of the lawmakers when the revoke laws were written, I don't think this is relevant. Interesting as the intent (if we knew it) of the lawmakers might be, we are required to rule on the basis of the Laws as written. >> >secondly the words of law 64C imply that the revoke penalty is not >> >"part of equity" rather something to be "compared to equity". >> >> I don't follow this at all, particularly as the word " equity" does not >> appear in L64C (apart from in the heading which is not part of the Law). > >If the word appeared within the law it would more than just "imply" that >revoke tricks were not part of equity - it would state it. I don't see any reason to assume this. >OK the headings are not part of the laws but I think it is safe to assume that >neither are they selected at random. Maybe I should have written "The >heading and words of L64C imply..." I still don't follow this. (I think) I see what you are trying to say, but I just don't see that the wording of L64C implies it or anything like it. It seems to me that the spirit and intent of L64C is simply: 'The OS should not gain from *any* revoke, so if the application of L64A/B leaves the NOS damaged, the director should adjust'. If, for whatever reason, you measure equity at the point of the first revoke only, you are not allowing L64C to do its job in respect of the second revoke. > >> Let me try once more: > >Honestly I do understand your point. I even agree it is a reasonable >interpretation of the law. I just don't accept it is the *only* >reasonable interpretation. Nor do I consider it desirable that the law >admits of such ambiguous interpretations but if we don't recognise that >ambiguity is possible it is unlikely that it will ever be resolved. > >> Immediately prior to the trick 5 revoke we are told that declarer can >> make only 10 tricks on any legal line of play. 2 of these tricks will >> be transferred in respect of the trick 1 revoke (L64A1),so that he now >> destined to be one down in his contract of 3N. Following the trick 5 >> revoke he wins 11 tricks less 2 tricks and 3N is now made. Now L64C >> specifically includes revokes "not subject to penalty" and declarer has >> made, as a direct consequence of the second revoke, a contract which >> immediately prior to this revoke was otherwise impossible. It seems >> abundantly clear to me that the NOS have been "insufficiently >> compensated for the damage caused " by the second revoke and that the TD >> should therefore "assign an adjusted score" of 3N-1 under L64C. For >> further corroboration we turn to the EBL Commentary on the Laws (EBLCL) >> 64.8 which requires the director "to restore as nearly as possible an >> equitable result in line with expectations as they were immediately >> prior to the revoke". Immediately prior to the second revoke >> the NOS expected a plus score! > >It was indicated that, at the time of writing, Kaplan (who was intimately >involved in the process) believed this meant "equity at the point before >the first revoke". I am content to believe that was the shared intent of >the authors. OK their wording doesn't convey this perfectly but we all >acknowledge how difficult it is to write good laws. I don't think the wording gets remotely close to conveying the meaning you suggest. If indeed the lawmakers intended to specify "equity at the point before the first revoke", it would have to be a spectacularly poor piece of drafting since there is no reference in L64C either to "equity" or "first revoke". >> I should add that I do not like the concept of 'break a rule' (however >> inadvertantly) and 'gain a trick', which I consider should offend >> everyone's sense of justice. FortunateIy I believe L64C prevents this >> happening. If I thought it didn't, I would be looking, as TD, to award >> an adjusted score under L72B1. If I believed that nothing in the Laws >> covered the situation, I would consider them deficient. > >And I, not really liking the automatic penalty for a revoke law, feel that >the penalising the first revoke is already a sufficient deterrent against >deliberate revoking Surely L64 is not about a "deterrent against deliberate revoking", it is about providing the NOS with redress for the damage caused by a revoke. In many cases, as we know, the penalty provisions of L64A over-compensate, but there is no penalty element in L64C at all. What you appear to be suggesting is that, because you believe that the L64A1 penalty for the first revoke is unduly harsh, this makes it all right for declarer to gain a trick back with his second 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 Sat Apr 14 02:56:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3DGung01034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 02:56:49 +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 f3DGuht01030 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 02:56:44 +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 LAA09621 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:59:03 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010413115537.007ef770@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:55:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: References: <200104121822.LAA24093@mailhub.irvine.com> <200104121822.LAA24093@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 12:02 AM 4/13/2001 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 11:22 AM -0700 4/12/01, Adam Beneschan wrote: >>This hypothetical (imagined) stuff is all relevant, of course, because >>the very essence of adjudicating a disputed claim is that we imagine >>hypothetical lines of play [2] and award, as the claimer's *actual* >>score, the least-favorable hypothetical score from the hypothetical >>lines we imagine. > >We do? I was under the impression that the two sides of this issue were: > >(1) Declarer has stated a line of play that includes a revoke, >therefor we rule that he did revoke, the revoke being established by >his intended subsequent play. >(2) Declarer has stated a line of play that includes a revoke, >revokes are illegal, and so we can't allow him that line of play. >Declarer now states a new, legal line of play. > >Perhaps there's a third side, like (2), except that we don't allow >declarer to state a new line of play, and we treat the claim as one >without a stated line of play. > >To me, that third line is absurd. Nothing in the laws supports it, as As I said before, L70D can certainly be read in such a way that declarer should not _want_ to state a new line of play, and so should prefer this third option! >far as I can see. If the proper ruling is (1) (and I'm not saying it >is) then the score he gets is the one that would have resulted from >the stated line of play - iirc, he gets the last three tricks, and >then two are transferred to defenders. If (2) is the proper ruling, >then the question asked by law 70 is "is there an alternative normal >line of play that gives declarer a worse result than this new >statement?" If the answer is no, then his new statement is accepted. >If the answer is "yes, there is one" then *that* line is followed to >the score. If there's more than one, well, it doesn't look to me like >the law says we *have* to go with the worst result. In fact, it >requires us to rule "as equitably as possible to *both* sides, >resolving doubtful points against the claimer" (emphasis mine). That >seems to me quite different from "he gets the least favorable score." > >At least, that's what the words I'm reading in the laws mean to me.:-) Hmm. This isn't the way I read it, but I see now that the law is ambiguous. I like this interpretation better. :) >Regards, > >Ed Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 14 03:01:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3DH1iA01062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 03:01:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3DH1bt01058 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 03:01:38 +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 MAA11023 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:03:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010413120032.007beaa0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:00:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: <3AD6BAF4.E11FAA54@village.uunet.be> References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010411112334.007fb7e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010412122809.007bcb00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:38 AM 4/13/2001 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Just a small correction to something : > >Grant Sterling wrote: >> >> >> Suppose a player in 4H, thinking he has 10 tricks with an >> immediate diamond ruff, claims, stating that he will ruff the >> diamond. He then realizes that he cannot ruff a diamond without >> revoking. He says 'Oh, wait, I guess I will finesse West for >> the queen of clubs'. If the player had a two-way finesse for that >> queen, L70D forbids us from allowing him to finesse W for that queen >> if West really has that Queen! But if East has the Queen, and the >> contract was actually cold on a squeeze or end-play or in some other >> way, then the player will be held to his new line. >> L70D says that any new line of play will be rejected if it >> works, and therefore may be accepted only if it fails. Hence, you >> should never state a new line of play, although you might be advised >> to reject flaws in your original line if you can do so immediately. >> > >But Grant, if the declarer in 4He says nothing, he will also >be ruled against. At least allow him to make the >evidentiary statement, which will be taken as such - >evidence. I would always allow him to make any statement he wants to--I was merely saying that if he's smart he won't make any statement other than "Oh, wait! I have a diamond in my hand so I can't ruff one!" [Or, if he thinks it will help, he can just say "Oh, &^$*".] >It can never cost him, and sometimes gain - so why not allow >him to do so ? It can cost him. As I said above, it may be that the hand is ice cold on a squeeze or endplay or something else. If he says nothing other than to try to correct the revoke immediately, the TD may very well decide that since the hand is cold in that way that declarer should get all the tricks, while if he says something about taking a finesse then he may not get the tricks after all. >Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 14 04:43:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3DIh1T24396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 04:43:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3DIgqt24355 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 04:42:53 +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 LAA16069; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:42:47 -0700 Message-Id: <200104131842.LAA16069@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:02:30 EDT." Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:42:47 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > At 11:22 AM -0700 4/12/01, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >This hypothetical (imagined) stuff is all relevant, of course, because > >the very essence of adjudicating a disputed claim is that we imagine > >hypothetical lines of play [2] and award, as the claimer's *actual* > >score, the least-favorable hypothetical score from the hypothetical > >lines we imagine. > > We do? Yes. To make sure I'm being clear, please note that my statement was about disputed claims in general, not just the ones where declarer includes a revoke as part of the claim statement---but the latter are included too. > I was under the impression that the two sides of this issue were: > > (1) Declarer has stated a line of play that includes a revoke, > therefor we rule that he did revoke, the revoke being established by ^^^ > his intended subsequent play. My inclination is to rule this way, but with one important correction: I would not rule that he DID revoke, but I would rule that he WOULD HAVE revoked if play had continued and WOULD HAVE gotten penalized, and therefore we award the claimer the score he WOULD HAVE gotten if play had continued. Maybe this seems trivial, but it isn't. The casual failure to distinguish between "actual" and "hypothetical" that has found its way into a lot of posts on this thread has led to a lot more confusion than we really should have. For example, a previous poster said we can't rule that he DID revoke because play has ceased due to the claim, but there's no such reason we can't rule that he WOULD HAVE revoked. Huge difference. Note that even those of us who see things my way on this issue have some disagreements about what WOULD HAVE happened. There are arguments that dummy WOULD HAVE prevented declarer from establishing the revoke, and Eric believes (based on the evidence) that declarer WOULD HAVE noticed that the lead was a heart in time to adopt the correct line. I could accept either argument---it sounds more like a judgment call than a legal issue. > (2) Declarer has stated a line of play that includes a revoke, > revokes are illegal, and so we can't allow him that line of play. > Declarer now states a new, legal line of play. Given that we're careful to distinguish between what DID happen and what WOULD HAVE happened, I don't see a basis in the Laws for not imagining that an illegal line of play WOULD HAVE happened. All the Laws give us is the open-ended 70A. > Perhaps there's a third side, like (2), except that we don't allow > declarer to state a new line of play, and we treat the claim as one > without a stated line of play. > > To me, that third line is absurd. Nothing in the laws supports it, as > far as I can see. This reasoning might make sense in some other disputed claim cases. For example, declarer claims saying "Dummy is good", and the defense objects on the grounds that declarer is currently in his hand and has no transportation to dummy. In that case, I believe the correct ruling is that declarer is not allowed to state a new line, and he's stuck with whatever (non-irrational) line gets imposed on him. I wouldn't use it here because I don't think (2) is right. > If the proper ruling is (1) (and I'm not saying it > is) then the score he gets is the one that would have resulted from > the stated line of play - iirc, he gets the last three tricks, and > then two are transferred to defenders. If (2) is the proper ruling, > then the question asked by law 70 is "is there an alternative normal > line of play that gives declarer a worse result than this new > statement?" If the answer is no, then his new statement is accepted. > If the answer is "yes, there is one" then *that* line is followed to > the score. If there's more than one, well, it doesn't look to me like > the law says we *have* to go with the worst result. In fact, it > requires us to rule "as equitably as possible to *both* sides, > resolving doubtful points against the claimer" (emphasis mine). That > seems to me quite different from "he gets the least favorable score." I don't think (2) is the proper ruling. But just to clarify, the "least favorable" phrase wasn't an essential part of my argument. I think it's a consequence of the "doubtful points must be ruled against the claimer" principle, however; if declarer would not adopt a certain line and we have no doubt that he wouldn't, then the line isn't in the set of "hypothetical lines we imagine" that I referred to above. -- 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 Apr 14 06:30:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3DKTa506989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 06:29:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3DKTRt06978 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 06:29:28 +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 f3DKTMa21240 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:29:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010413161543.00b37120@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, 13 Apr 2001 16:30:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: References: <200104121822.LAA24093@mailhub.irvine.com> <200104121822.LAA24093@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 12:02 AM 4/13/01, Ed wrote: >At 11:22 AM -0700 4/12/01, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >This hypothetical (imagined) stuff is all relevant, of course, because > >the very essence of adjudicating a disputed claim is that we imagine > >hypothetical lines of play [2] and award, as the claimer's *actual* > >score, the least-favorable hypothetical score from the hypothetical > >lines we imagine. > >We do? I was under the impression that the two sides of this issue were: > >(1) Declarer has stated a line of play that includes a revoke, >therefor we rule that he did revoke, the revoke being established by >his intended subsequent play. >(2) Declarer has stated a line of play that includes a revoke, >revokes are illegal, and so we can't allow him that line of play. >Declarer now states a new, legal line of play. > >Perhaps there's a third side, like (2), except that we don't allow >declarer to state a new line of play, and we treat the claim as one >without a stated line of play. Declarer has stated a line of play that includes a revoke. Ed has laid out two sides to the debate: (1) We rule that he "did", i.e. *will*, revoke, in what Adam calls the hypothetical play. (2) Because revokes are illegal, or irrational, or whatever, we reject his stated line of play and rule that he *will not* revoke in the hypothetical play (continuing with one of Ed's two variations on that theme). I have attempted to stake out a third position: (3) We make a determination as to whether it is at all probable that he would have revoked had he actually played out the hand, i.e. whether he will or will not (subject to benefit of the doubt to the other side) revoke in the hypothetical play, and rule accordingly. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 14 06:59:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3DKx4x09542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 06:59:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3DKwot09483 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 06:58:51 +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 QAA19236 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:58:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA28867 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:58:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:58:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104132058.QAA28867@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com > I see nothing in the Laws that prohibit a > declarer from revoking. If he does so, there is a clear penalty for the act. How about L44C? That's the one that takes precedence over all other laws. If declarer has faced his hand, the "clear penalty" is zero tricks (L64B3). > From: Adam Beneschan > This hypothetical (imagined) stuff is all relevant, of course, because > the very essence of adjudicating a disputed claim is that we imagine > hypothetical lines of play [2] and award, as the claimer's *actual* > score, the least-favorable hypothetical score from the hypothetical > lines we imagine. OK with me. > Note [2]: Specifically, we imagine those lines of play that are > consistent with the claim statement but do not introduce any new > irrational play not explicitly stated in the claim. It's my belief > that if the claim statement explicitly includes something we'd > consider irrational (including a revoke), we hold claimer to it > anyway. I am not so sure about a revoke. I don't have any problem with Grant's example where declarer crashes his honors. I also have no problem with, say, a lead from the wrong hand. The opponents have a clear and explicit right to accept such a lead if it benefits them, and they have the same right if the "lead" is part of the hypothetical play embraced in a claim statement. But L44C is worded pretty strongly so I am not at all sure about a revoke. Fortunately, it doesn't matter in the case presented here, although I can imagine a different case where it might matter. The one thing I'm very sure of is that applying a two- (or one-) trick penalty is wrong if the claimer's hand is faced before the revoke occurs (or will occur in the hypothetical play). To answer Grant's questions: 1. If the claim statement _means_ declarer is adopting an irrational line, we hold him to it. 2. If the claim statement includes an infraction that opponents are allowed to accept, and the infraction benefits them, we hold claimer to the infraction. 3. I am not at all sure a revoke is included in the previous category but could be persuaded. 4. I am quite sure that a revoke from a faced hand cannot incur penalty tricks, even if it becomes established. This applies just as much to hypothetical play as to real play. , -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 14 07:28:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3DLSJn19409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 07:28:19 +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 f3DLS4t19354 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 07:28:06 +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 RAA20517 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA29059 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:28:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104132128.RAA29059@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > N E S W > > 1NT ... ... p > > p p > From: "Kooijman, A." > The problem with you guys, Steve , Adam, is that you don't read laws but > just want to be pragmatic. That makes lousy TD's and nice debating groups. I > feel responsible for producing capable TD's. I think that's a compliment. I'm usually accused of the opposite. In fact, all I'm doing is reading the text as accurately as I can. Are we all agreed that the auction at the top is the one we are talking about? West has passed immediately after North's 1NT opening, and then North passed (accepting West's POOT) and then East passed. Ton initially used tabs, which got all messed up by many viewers. I'm wondering whether this continued debate is because we are talking about two different auctions. OK, here's L34 again: When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. The auction reverts to the player who missed his turn. All subsequent passes are canceled, and the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. While we can argue about the meaning of 'that' in "at that turn," the law talks about "depriving a player" (only one player) and "the player who missed his turn" (again only one). Perhaps the writers didn't contemplate that two players might be missed, but it seems more likely that they considered that three players had to have passed for the law to take effect, leaving only one who has been deprived. In the above auction, that is South, not East. East has most certainly had a chance to call, although as I say, we can argue about whether it was "at that turn" or not. If the auction is supposed to revert to East in the above, I suggest changing the language to say something like "... all passes beginning with the first one out of turn are cancelled, and the auction reverts to the player next in rotation after the last legal call." (I think this would be a poorer law, but at least it would convey the meaning Ton seems to be arguing for.) Is that an analytical enough reading for 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 Sat Apr 14 08:05:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3DM5IJ26107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:05:18 +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 f3DM52t26102 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:05:04 +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 PAA20358; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:04:56 -0700 Message-Id: <200104132204.PAA20358@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:58:46 EDT." <200104132058.QAA28867@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:04:56 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > The one thing I'm very sure of is that applying a two- (or one-) trick > penalty is wrong if the claimer's hand is faced before the revoke > occurs (or will occur in the hypothetical play). Why would the claimer's hand be faced in hypothetical play? If he's (hypothetically) playing it out, he's not going to claim. -- 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 Apr 14 12:32:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3E2Vsf07874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 12:31:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3E2VUt07864 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 12:31:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from AlanLeBendig@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id p.73.cc9b82f (1759) for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:31:20 -0400 (EDT) From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com Message-ID: <73.cc9b82f.28091077@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:31:19 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_73.cc9b82f.28091077_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_73.cc9b82f.28091077_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/13/01 2:00:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, willner@cfa.harvard.edu writes: > > From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com > > I see nothing in the Laws that prohibit a > > declarer from revoking. If he does so, there is a clear penalty for the > act. > > How about L44C? That's the one that takes precedence over all other > 44C does not cover what I am saying, Steve. It requires a player to follow suit but does not PROHIBIT him from revoking. I see a very fine difference here. Others in this thread have suggested that the Director should rule the claim valid because a revoke would be an illegal play and that would not be acceptable. I was maintaining that this line of reasoning is not rationale (IMO) since we have never tried to prohibit any player from revoking (please don't bring up the intentional revoke). If 44C were to be taken literally than we would do something VERY SERIOUS to anybody that revokes. It wouldn't be a one or two trick penalty. Perhaps something like 73B2? Whay can't we simplify all this by saying that in all cases, a card laid is a card played. A mistake will cost you and no one has to try to get into a player's mind to try to figure out why they made the mistake or if it was a mistake or merely a slip of the tongue. We do that in quite a few instances and it has come to be accepted by the players. It seems like it would be so much simpler if we did it in all situations. This has been proposed by Jeff Polisner and Gary Blaiss. And I believe Bobby Wolff is one of the supporters of the concept. I used to be against this idea but this thread has helped to convince me that this approach in the Laws would make life so much easier for the TDs and eliminate the need for MANY ACs. And that would be good, IMO... Alan LeBendig --part1_73.cc9b82f.28091077_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/13/01 2:00:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
willner@cfa.harvard.edu writes:


> From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com
> I see nothing in the Laws that prohibit a
> declarer from revoking.  If he does so, there is a clear penalty for the
act.

How about L44C?  That's the one that takes precedence over all other
laws.


44C does not cover what I am saying, Steve.  It requires a player to follow
suit but does not PROHIBIT him from revoking.  I see a very fine difference
here.  Others in this thread have suggested that the Director should rule the
claim valid because a revoke would be an illegal play and that would not be
acceptable.  I was maintaining that this line of reasoning is not rationale
(IMO) since we have never tried to prohibit any player from revoking (please
don't bring up the intentional revoke).  If 44C were to be taken literally
than we would do something VERY SERIOUS to anybody that revokes.  It wouldn't
be a one or two trick penalty.  Perhaps something like 73B2?

Whay can't we simplify all this by saying that in all cases, a card laid is a
card played.  A mistake will cost you and no one has to try to get into a
player's mind to try to figure out why they made the mistake or if it was a
mistake or merely a slip of the tongue.  We do that in quite a few instances
and it has come to be accepted by the players.  It seems like it would be so
much simpler if we did it in all situations.  This has been proposed by Jeff
Polisner and Gary Blaiss.  And I believe Bobby Wolff is one of the supporters
of the concept.  I used to be against this idea but this thread has helped to
convince me that this approach in the Laws would make life so much easier for
the TDs and eliminate the need for MANY ACs.  And that would be good, IMO...

Alan LeBendig
--part1_73.cc9b82f.28091077_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 14 12:33:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3E2XAA07902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 12:33:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3E2Wqt07891 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 12:32:53 +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 f3E2UNm08501 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200104132204.PAA20358@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200104132204.PAA20358@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:28:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Why would the claimer's hand be faced in hypothetical play? If he's >(hypothetically) playing it out, he's not going to claim. We are talking about "hypothetical play" *because* he claimed. And now his hand will be faced (Law 70B2) and so Steve's right, 64B3 says the revoke can't be established. 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/AwUBOte2zr2UW3au93vOEQITggCgr1/YVtT+dh/P3CTRomBstTIT+PkAoNwZ OMw8qnPf0KVjmudqDudhn1r7 =m5RW -----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 Apr 14 15:42:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3E5fYW29488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:41:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r13.mx.aol.com (imo-r13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3E5fMt29478 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:41:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from AlanLeBendig@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id p.7f.13090566 (4591) for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:41:06 -0400 (EDT) From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com Message-ID: <7f.13090566.28093cf2@aol.com> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:41:06 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7f.13090566.28093cf2_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_7f.13090566.28093cf2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/13/01 7:34:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ereppert@rochester.rr.com writes: > We are talking about "hypothetical play" *because* he claimed. And > now his hand will be faced (Law 70B2) and so Steve's right, 64B3 says > the revoke can't be established. > The revoke was established before the cards were faced!! Read 63A2. The facing of the cards came as a result of the contested claim. It has NOTHING to do with the revoke. Alan LeBendig --part1_7f.13090566.28093cf2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/13/01 7:34:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ereppert@rochester.rr.com writes:


We are talking about "hypothetical play" *because* he claimed. And
now his hand will be faced (Law 70B2) and so Steve's right, 64B3 says
the revoke can't be established.

The revoke was established before the cards were faced!!  Read 63A2.  The
facing of the cards came as a result of the contested claim.  It has NOTHING
to do with the revoke.

Alan LeBendig
--part1_7f.13090566.28093cf2_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 14 23:10:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3ED8l701168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:08:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3ED8Ut01088 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:08:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-111.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.111]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3ED8Nn16895 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:08:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD812E2.589DF171@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:05:38 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104132058.QAA28867@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: AlanLeBendig@aol.com > > I see nothing in the Laws that prohibit a > > declarer from revoking. If he does so, there is a clear penalty for the act. > > How about L44C? That's the one that takes precedence over all other > laws. > Well, but sometimes people do revoke. > If declarer has faced his hand, the "clear penalty" is zero tricks > (L64B3). > I do not believe that this is valid. Steve is in the "impossible to revoke" camp. I believe that is not the correct camp. > > The one thing I'm very sure of is that applying a two- (or one-) trick > penalty is wrong if the claimer's hand is faced before the revoke > occurs (or will occur in the hypothetical play). > Again I do not believe this is correct. It is hard to refute though. > To answer Grant's questions: > 1. If the claim statement _means_ declarer is adopting an irrational > line, we hold him to it. > > 2. If the claim statement includes an infraction that opponents are > allowed to accept, and the infraction benefits them, we hold claimer to > the infraction. > > 3. I am not at all sure a revoke is included in the previous category > but could be persuaded. > > 4. I am quite sure that a revoke from a faced hand cannot incur penalty > tricks, even if it becomes established. This applies just as much to > hypothetical play as to real play. > , I believe that if we are to rule that a player will revoke in the hypothetical play (and I can imagine such rulings - though the original case of this thread is not one of them), then this is not a revoke from a "hand that is faced". We should always treat the claim as an extension of the "normal" play, and in the normal play, the hand would not be faced. The facing of the hand after the revoke is not a facing of a hand, but a method of examining the claim. No Steve, if we rule that this declarer would ruff the heart, then we should give 2 tricks to defenders. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 14 23:10:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3ED9oa01505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:09:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3ED9dt01450 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:09:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-65.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.65]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B6EB936DB6; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:09:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005d01c0c4e2$c483d140$41b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:33:48 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> > N E S W >> > 1NT ... ... p >> > p p > >> From: "Kooijman, A." >> The problem with you guys, Steve , Adam, is that you don't read laws but >> just want to be pragmatic. That makes lousy TD's and nice debating groups. I >> feel responsible for producing capable TD's. > >I think that's a compliment. I'm usually accused of the opposite. In >fact, all I'm doing is reading the text as accurately as I can. Then, with all respect, you are doing a lousy job too. >Are we all agreed that the auction at the top is the one we are talking >about? West has passed immediately after North's 1NT opening, and then >North passed (accepting West's POOT) and then East passed. Ton >initially used tabs, which got all messed up by many viewers. I'm >wondering whether this continued debate is because we are talking about >two different auctions. No, that is not the reason, we talked about the same irregularity. > >OK, here's L34 again: > When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not > end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a > player of his right to call at that turn. The auction reverts to the > player who missed his turn. All subsequent passes are canceled, and > the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. > >While we can argue about the meaning of 'that' in "at that turn, What can we argue about 'that' in 'at that turn'? Is there somybody out there trying to tell me that ' at that turn' is not related to the skipped turn? If so I like a clear 'yes', then I am out of this discussion (As I decided with Herman de Wael, who stubbornly sticks to his opinion without any reasonable argument in this case). " the >law talks about "depriving a player" (only one player) and "the player >who missed his turn" (again only one). This is clear nonsense. Angrily I took my lawbook and opened it on the page with L50C: saying: when a defender has a minor penalty card, he may not ....... Mister Willner as TD at the table where both defenders have a minor penalty starts blaming the LC once more that it did not describe this case, since the laws only deal with one defender etc. There are hundreds of those in the laws. When a player feels damaged he may call the TD. Mister Willner gets a call from two players at different tables and will tell both that he has to penalize them since only one player is allowed to cal the TD for such a case. I have only one explanation, not 'an explanation', for this kind of arguing. Reluctance to admit a mistake. Perhaps the writers didn't >contemplate that two players might be missed, but it seems more likely >that they considered that three players had to have passed for the law >to take effect, leaving only one who has been deprived. It is not important at all what the LC thought of in those situations where the laws are clear themselves. Stronger: it is a pity for the LC if they wanted something done, which is not what the laws tell us to do. Then we still follow the laws and wait for better times. This discussion has its value even for me. I will try to convince the LC that we can delete L34, both pairs having the possibility to avoid this situation. And if it has to stay I do not see any reason to change a word (which includes my opinion that changing two words or even three is not a serious option either, Steve). In the above >auction, that is South, not East. East has most certainly had a chance >to call, although as I say, we can argue about whether it was "at that >turn" or not. No, we can't argue, not among serious people. > >If the auction is supposed to revert to East in the above, I suggest >changing the language to say something like "... all passes beginning >with the first one out of turn are cancelled, and the auction reverts >to the player next in rotation after the last legal call." (I think >this would be a poorer law, but at least it would convey the meaning >Ton seems 'seems' sounds not strong enough to me. to be arguing for.) > >Is that an analytical enough reading for you? Not with my idea about 'analytical'. Then we need a clear relation between the text and the analysis. ton >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 15 00:07:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3EE7TE18114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:07:29 +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.iae.nl (postfix@ns1.iae.nl [212.61.26.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3EE7Lt18071 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:07:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d291.iae.nl [212.61.5.37]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id F3AE420F42 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:07:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00dd01c0c4ec$2fdfdca0$25053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200104132128.RAA29059@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:54:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk L34 in force says that "All subsequent passes are cancelled, and the auction proceeds as though there has been no irregularity." This is left when L34 has been applied: N E S W 1NT Is there any reason for further discussion? Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 11:28 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 34 or not? > > > N E S W > > > 1NT ... ... p > > > p p > > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > The problem with you guys, Steve , Adam, is that you don't read laws but > > just want to be pragmatic. That makes lousy TD's and nice debating groups. I > > feel responsible for producing capable TD's. > > I think that's a compliment. I'm usually accused of the opposite. In > fact, all I'm doing is reading the text as accurately as I can. > > Are we all agreed that the auction at the top is the one we are talking > about? West has passed immediately after North's 1NT opening, and then > North passed (accepting West's POOT) and then East passed. Ton > initially used tabs, which got all messed up by many viewers. I'm > wondering whether this continued debate is because we are talking about > two different auctions. > > OK, here's L34 again: > When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not > end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a > player of his right to call at that turn. The auction reverts to the > player who missed his turn. All subsequent passes are canceled, and > the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. > > While we can argue about the meaning of 'that' in "at that turn," the > law talks about "depriving a player" (only one player) and "the player > who missed his turn" (again only one). Perhaps the writers didn't > contemplate that two players might be missed, but it seems more likely > that they considered that three players had to have passed for the law > to take effect, leaving only one who has been deprived. In the above > auction, that is South, not East. East has most certainly had a chance > to call, although as I say, we can argue about whether it was "at that > turn" or not. > > If the auction is supposed to revert to East in the above, I suggest > changing the language to say something like "... all passes beginning > with the first one out of turn are cancelled, and the auction reverts > to the player next in rotation after the last legal call." (I think > this would be a poorer law, but at least it would convey the meaning > Ton seems to be arguing for.) > > Is that an analytical enough reading for 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 15 00:41:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3EEelG19974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:40:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3EEeat19962 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:40:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.21.a576335 (660); Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:40:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <21.a576335.2809bb58@aol.com> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:40:24 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: b.schelen@iae.nl, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_21.a576335.2809bb58_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_21.a576335.2809bb58_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/14/01 10:08:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, b.schelen@iae.nl writes: > +=+ No, but there hasn't been for some time. Such a basis is not a requirement on blml. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --part1_21.a576335.2809bb58_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/14/01 10:08:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
b.schelen@iae.nl writes:



Is there any reason for further discussion?




+=+ No, but there hasn't been for some time. Such a
basis is not a requirement on blml.    ~ Grattan ~ +=+
--part1_21.a576335.2809bb58_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 Apr 15 00:41:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3EEemP19975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:40:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com (imo-m03.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3EEect19964 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:40:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 7.5b.14c2f32e (660); Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:40:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <5b.14c2f32e.2809bb59@aol.com> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:40:25 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: AlanLeBendig@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_5b.14c2f32e.2809bb59_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_5b.14c2f32e.2809bb59_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/12/01 12:34:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, AlanLeBendig@aol.com writes: > I respectfully disagree, Grattan. +=+ Hello Alan, The courtesy with which you dismiss my exposition of the law makes it difficult for me to respond. I make only one point: there is no requirement to find in Law 70 words that prohibit application of a penalty; it is well established that those who would do something must find in the applicable law the specified authority to do it. The earlier laws you cite apply to the play, not to the resolution of a claim. For the rest, Alan, given my much longer and far wider experience of the making, interpretation, and application of the laws, I do not feel called upon to dignify heresy with debate. Yours, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --part1_5b.14c2f32e.2809bb59_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/12/01 12:34:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
AlanLeBendig@aol.com writes:


I respectfully disagree, Grattan.  


+=+ Hello Alan,
 The courtesy with which you dismiss my
exposition of the law makes it difficult for
me to respond. I make only one point: there
is no requirement to find in Law 70 words
that prohibit application of a penalty; it is
well established that those who would do
something must find in the applicable law
the specified authority to do it. The earlier
laws you cite apply to the play, not to the
resolution of a claim.
  For the rest, Alan, given my much longer
and far wider experience of the making,
interpretation, and application of the laws,
I do not feel called upon to dignify heresy
with debate.       Yours, ~ Grattan ~    +=+



--part1_5b.14c2f32e.2809bb59_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 Apr 15 00:41:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3EEfDk19997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:41:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3EEf4t19990 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:41:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id c.4b.a36bbdb (660); Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:40:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <4b.a36bbdb.2809bb57@aol.com> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:40:23 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_4b.a36bbdb.2809bb57_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_4b.a36bbdb.2809bb57_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/14/01 9:11:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > but at least it would convey the meaning > >Ton seems....... > +'seems' sounds not strong enough to me.+ > .........to be arguing for.) > +=+ Hi ton, Clearly you are wasting your shot. In a such a situation I do not believe you and I are called upon to argue. The correct position has been explained; if the seed falls amongst thistles let the thistles continue to grow. I have some difficulty following threads here because Kojak strikes out messages from most sources without reading them - he reckons it a waste of time. Principally it appears he retains yours, mine, D Burn's and, when they avoid the seeming desire merely to be advocate for the devil, some of D Stevenson's. DB may be warmed by his listing amongst the three front runners. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --part1_4b.a36bbdb.2809bb57_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/14/01 9:11:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes:



but at least it would convey the meaning
>Ton seems.......
+'seems' sounds not strong enough to me.+
.........to be arguing for.)



  +=+ Hi ton,
  Clearly you are wasting your shot. In a such
a situation I do not believe you and I are called
upon to argue.  The correct position has been
explained; if the seed falls amongst thistles let
the thistles continue to grow.   
   I have some difficulty following threads here
because Kojak strikes out messages from most
sources without reading them - he reckons it a
waste of time. Principally it appears he retains
yours, mine, D Burn's and, when they avoid the
seeming desire merely to be advocate for the
devil, some of D Stevenson's.   DB may be
warmed by his listing amongst the three front
runners.                      ~ Grattan ~ +=+
                                      
--part1_4b.a36bbdb.2809bb57_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 Apr 15 00:48:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3EElwv21083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:47:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3EElht21018 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:47:44 +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 f3EEjIT13157 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <7f.13090566.28093cf2@aol.com> References: <7f.13090566.28093cf2@aol.com> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:40:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The revoke was established before the cards were faced!! Read 63A2. The >facing of the cards came as a result of the contested claim. It has NOTHING >to do with the revoke. Okay, I mistyped. What 64B3 actually says is that an established revoke can't be penalized because the revoke card is in a hand faced on the table. Not the same things as "the revoke can't be established" but it has the same effect. Yes, the facing of the cards is a result of the claim, so I suppose in that sense it has nothing to do with the revoke, but so what? It certainly *affects* the revoke - - or rather the ruling on it. Or so it seems 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/AwUBOthjDr2UW3au93vOEQIteACfdyeKZROhqdo/1r9LFBUCoIzcQvcAnjla v2g7hykFQ/6buT7mmVq/yOBL =nrQ8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 15 03:33:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3EHWgL01759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 03:32:42 +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-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 f3EHWZt01754 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 03:32:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from wrightnet.demon.co.uk ([193.237.21.47]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14oTuQ-000ADd-0U for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 18:32:31 +0100 Message-ID: <5xOWZTAHcI26Ewkq@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 18:21:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Steve Wright Subject: [BLML] Insufficient bid out of turn MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.00 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk North is dealer, auction is North East South West 1S ... ... 1C How do you rule? -- Steve Wright -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 15 05:43:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3EJhAa08124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 05:43:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3EJh0t08110 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 05:43:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from eitan (gcon1-p120.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.170.120]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA02576 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:43:01 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010414224212.008f9300@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@mail.netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:42:12 +0300 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid out of turn In-Reply-To: <5xOWZTAHcI26Ewkq@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Give N the option of accepting 1Cl (L27A and L29A). If he does, 1Cl is legal (L27A) and the auction proceeds normally. 1Cl is AI for both pairs (L16 intro.) If he does not, L27 no longer applies (L27B only applies to an insufficient bid in rotation) and the call is cancelled (L29B) and L31B now applies (partner must pass all the time etc., lead penalties). The 1Cl is UI to EW and AI to NS (L16C). Eitan Levy At 18:21 14/04/2001 +0100, you wrote: > >North is dealer, auction is > >North East South West > 1S ... ... 1C > >How do you rule? >-- >Steve Wright >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 15 08:06:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3EM5u112837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 08:05:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3EM5nt12833 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 08:05:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3EFH0701154; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:17:00 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Steve Wright , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid out of turn Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:10:55 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <5xOWZTAHcI26Ewkq@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <5xOWZTAHcI26Ewkq@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01041415170001.01143@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Steve Wright wrote: > North is dealer, auction is > > North East South West > 1S ... ... 1C > > How do you rule? L27C: when a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation, L31 on bids out of rotation applies. North can accept the 1C bid, but if he doesn't, L31B applies to a bid at partner's turn to call. East must pass for the rest of the auction, West can bid anything he wants, and there will be a lead penalty on East if West does not name clubs later (L26A), or if E-W are playing an artificial club, then East may be forbidden from leading one suit (L26B). The only time that it matters that a bid out of rotation is insufficient is under L31A1, when the bid was made at RHO's turn to call and RHO passes. N E S 1NT ... 1H Now, if East passes, it is just as if South had bid an insufficient 1H. If 2H would be conventional, then North will be barred no matter what South does; if 2H would not be conventional, South may correct 1H to 2H without penalty but the 1H bid is still unauthorized information. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 15 20:40:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3FAdmM25079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:39:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3FAdgt25075 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:39:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.102.246] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14ojwO-0000Ey-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 11:39:37 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c0c598$4760c900$f66601d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <7f.13090566.28093cf2@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 11:38:16 +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 Ed wrote: > Okay, I mistyped. What 64B3 actually says is that an established > revoke can't be penalized because the revoke card is in a hand faced > on the table. Not the same things as "the revoke can't be > established" but it has the same effect. Yes, the facing of the cards > is a result of the claim, so I suppose in that sense it has nothing > to do with the revoke, but so what? It certainly *affects* the revoke > - - or rather the ruling on it. Or so it seems to me. The introduction of Law 63B3, which is certainly a valid point, creates to my way of thinking a different way of looking at the problem. To recap: declarer, who has a heart, claims on the basis that he will ruff a heart lead and then cash two aces. The defenders object on the basis that to ruff the heart would be a revoke. Very well - the director requires all hands to be faced, then adjudicates on the claim. If what is being suggested is that he allows declarer to play in accordance with his statement, but does not penalise the revoke, then declarer will obviously make the three tricks to which he is, in the minds of many, entitled. Problem solved? Not exactly. Carrying this principle to its logical conclusion, a declarer might claim in this position: 432 432 None None None None AKQ J109 None None AKQ J109 765 765 None None Spades are trumps. Declarer, who thinks that all his hearts are diamonds, faces his cards and claims on the basis that he will ruff three "diamonds" in dummy and three hearts in his hand. Six tricks to declarer. Now, this is obviously absurd. But if we rule according to Law 63B, applying the principle that Steve Willner has suggested be applied to the actual case, it appears to me that we cannot disallow this claim - each of the six revokes will become in some way "established", but there will be no penalty for them! What is the director to do? Either he will conclude, as I would conclude, that L63B cannot apply to cards faced as the result of a claim, or he will apply L64C and decide that although the revokes are established but not subject to penalty, the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated for them, and will adjust the score accordingly. If, according to Herman, this hypothetical case and the actual case are to be treated not as "revoke" cases but as "contested claim" cases, the director will (presumably) apply L70A and rule "as equitably as possible". But what is "equity" here? Declarer has announced that he will revoke - does "equity" consist in ignoring his statement and allowing him not to revoke, so that he does not incur a revoke penalty? I do not believe that it does, though I could just about accept a contrary argument. It seems to me, however, that perhaps the Laws themselves might be made a little more helpful in terms of resolving this issue. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 15 21:16:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3FBFxG06901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:15:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3FBFrt06869 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:15:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-190.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.190]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id C6DE43816D; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:15:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004d01c0c59c$08fc5ae0$beb6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David J Grabiner" , "Steve Wright" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid out of turn Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:03:02 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Steve Wright wrote: >> North is dealer, auction is >> >> North East South West >> 1S ... ... 1C >> >> How do you rule? > >L27C: when a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation, L31 on >bids out of rotation applies. > >North can accept the 1C bid, but if he doesn't, L31B applies to a bid >at partner's turn to call. East must pass for the rest of the auction, >West can bid anything he wants, and there will be a lead penalty on >East if West does not name clubs later (L26A), or if E-W are playing an >artificial club, then East may be forbidden from leading one suit >(L26B). > >The only time that it matters that a bid out of rotation is >insufficient is under L31A1, when the bid was made at RHO's turn to >call and RHO passes. > >N E S >1NT ... 1H > >Now, if East passes, it is just as if South had bid an insufficient 1H. >If 2H would be conventional, then North will be barred no matter what >South does; if 2H would not be conventional, South may correct 1H to 2H >without penalty but the 1H bid is still unauthorized information. Good analysis but for the last line. If both, 1H and 2H, are not conventional, there is no UI. Read 271a (and B) carefully. 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 Apr 15 21:18:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3FBIc007837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:18:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3FBIVt07794 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:18:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-144.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.144]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3FBIPn10856 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:18:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD960D7.85ADE03E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:50:31 +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] Law 34 or not? References: <005d01c0c4e2$c483d140$41b6f1c3@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: > > >> > N E S W > >> > 1NT ... ... p > >> > p p > > > >OK, here's L34 again: > > When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not > > end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a > > player of his right to call at that turn. The auction reverts to the > > player who missed his turn. All subsequent passes are canceled, and > > the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. > > > >While we can argue about the meaning of 'that' in "at that turn, > > What can we argue about 'that' in 'at that turn'? Is there somybody out > there trying to tell me that ' at that turn' is not related to the skipped > turn? If so I like a clear 'yes', then I am out of this discussion (As I > decided with Herman de Wael, who stubbornly sticks to his opinion without > any reasonable argument in this case). > Sorry Ton, but if you are getting personal, I simply cannot let this rest. West has passed, North has passed, East has passed. Isn't that a "turn". Who has missed out ? South. As I read L34, South is _THE_ player who has been deprived of bidding at THAT turn. But I really don't believe it makes any difference : It is up to East to trigger the entry into L34. He is the one who has to make the decision to make a third pass. What use is it to tell him : if you pass, then you'll have a chance to bid again. After all, the bidding is : 1NT ... ... pas pas According to me, east now has two options : - he can bid, and then it is South's turn - he can pass, and then by L34 it's South's turn (*) According to you, east has three options : - he can bid, and then it is South's turn - he can pass, and then by L34 it's his turn again. He can pass again, and then it's South's turn - he can pass, and then bid, and then it is South's turn Do you really believe East has any message to put in this third option? (*) I don't care whether the Laws say the three passes are cancelled or not, everyone knows (and is allowed to know) that they happened. Now I agree with you that it is silly to let South start the second attempt at bidding. But I don't believe it matters very much. Please WBFLC, put this right when you next meet. Tell us what you want and we'll apply it. But don't allow a discussion such as this one to go on and on. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 15 22:38:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3FCbpg01976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:37:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r14.mx.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3FCbkt01972 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:37:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 7.b0.133c0d01 (3982) for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 08:37:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 08:37:32 EDT Subject: [BLML] Deleting To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b0.133c0d01.280af00c_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_b0.133c0d01.280af00c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan's remarks about my deleting E-mail messages "...ain't necessarily so..." (music in the background please). I add John Probst to those BLML he listed that I read (religiously?), and I read the beginning of any thread to see if I can contribute my experience. Of course, any message directed to me from other than BLML gets my attention and answer. My hackles are raised --easily-- by those whose desire it is to change the basic nature of our game by reading the Laws to support their personal agendas, and those who are never wrong or misinformed. --part1_b0.133c0d01.280af00c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan's remarks about my deleting E-mail messages "...ain't necessarily
so..." (music in the background please). I add John Probst to those BLML he
listed that I read (religiously?), and I read the beginning of any thread to
see if I can contribute my experience.   Of course, any message directed to
me from other than BLML gets my attention and answer.

My hackles are raised --easily-- by those whose desire it is to change the
basic nature of our game by reading the Laws to support their personal
agendas, and those who are never wrong or misinformed.
--part1_b0.133c0d01.280af00c_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 16 07:12:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3FLBFK15066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 07:11:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3FLB7t15062 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 07:11:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-197.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.197]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3FLB2n24532 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 23:11:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AD98793.60CE05F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:35:47 +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] claiming a revoke References: <7f.13090566.28093cf2@aol.com> <001501c0c598$4760c900$f66601d5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn, as usually, makes a lot of sense. David Burn wrote: > > > The introduction of Law 63B3, which is certainly a valid point, creates > to my way of thinking a different way of looking at the problem. To > recap: declarer, who has a heart, claims on the basis that he will ruff > a heart lead and then cash two aces. The defenders object on the basis > that to ruff the heart would be a revoke. Very well - the director > requires all hands to be faced, then adjudicates on the claim. If what > is being suggested is that he allows declarer to play in accordance with > his statement, but does not penalise the revoke, then declarer will > obviously make the three tricks to which he is, in the minds of many, > entitled. Problem solved? > Not at all. Go on David: > Not exactly. Carrying this principle to its logical conclusion, a > declarer might claim in this position: > > 432 > 432 > None > None > None None > AKQ J109 > None None > AKQ J109 > 765 > 765 > None > None > > Spades are trumps. Declarer, who thinks that all his hearts are > diamonds, faces his cards and claims on the basis that he will ruff > three "diamonds" in dummy and three hearts in his hand. Six tricks to > declarer. > > Now, this is obviously absurd. But if we rule according to Law 63B, > applying the principle that Steve Willner has suggested be applied to > the actual case, it appears to me that we cannot disallow this claim - > each of the six revokes will become in some way "established", but there > will be no penalty for them! What is the director to do? Either he will > conclude, as I would conclude, that L63B cannot apply to cards faced as > the result of a claim, or he will apply L64C and decide that although > the revokes are established but not subject to penalty, the > non-offending side is insufficiently compensated for them, and will > adjust the score accordingly. > Yep - patently absurd. Either you rule that declarer "revokes" in his hypothetical line of play, and then you apply the revoke penalty (without looking at the "hands faced" bit), or you rule that he does not revoke, and you rule according to L70. David and I are absolutely NOT in disagreement here. What we usually disagree upon is how severely we rule against claimer, but not on the processes involved. > If, according to Herman, this hypothetical case and the actual case are > to be treated not as "revoke" cases but as "contested claim" cases, the > director will (presumably) apply L70A and rule "as equitably as > possible". But what is "equity" here? Declarer has announced that he > will revoke - does "equity" consist in ignoring his statement and > allowing him not to revoke, so that he does not incur a revoke penalty? > I do not believe that it does, though I could just about accept a > contrary argument. It seems to me, however, that perhaps the Laws > themselves might be made a little more helpful in terms of resolving > this issue. > I don't think the Laws can be helpful at all. What we need to resolve is whether or not the declarer will revoke if he actually plays it out. Since your case is a hypothetical one, it is impossible to make this decision. What makes declarer see his hearts as diamonds ? That is the question we need to answer, before we can make a sound decision. In the actual case, it is my profound opinion that declarer made the statement that he did because he momentarily mistook a diamond for a heart. In the case above, I don't know what to think. I guess this is a claim made by David Burn just to test me. I would rule that DB knows full well where all the cards are, and that if he has to play this, he will make three tricks. Well, when looking again, I think that even I might make 3 tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 16 10:06:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3G061l15143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:06:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3G05tt15139 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:05:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.244.61] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14owWc-0001tK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:05:51 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c0c608$e87cb9a0$3df47ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Deleting Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:05:10 +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 Kojak wrote: >Grattan's remarks about my deleting E-mail messages "...ain't necessarily so..." (music in the background please). Those who know me will be aware that I am the last person to place in the role of "li'l David". Yet on the question of "claiming a revoke", I find myself in opposition to both Grattan and Kojak, and can therefore claim some common ground with my famous namesake: "Li'l David was small, but oh my! Li'l David was small, but oh my! He fought big Goliath Who lay down and dieth, Li'l David was small, but oh my!" (Gershwin, "It Ain't Necessarily So", from "Porgy and Bess") Now, I do not expect my august opponents to lay down and die - indeed, I wish them very many more years of prosperity and contentment. But I wish I knew why they thought that if a man while claiming says "I will do X", where X is something that is meaningful in a bridge context and happens with some frequency at the bridge table, he should be treated more leniently than a man who actually does X without preamble. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 16 14:20:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3G4Ies02536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:18:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f24.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3G4IYt02504 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:18:27 -0700 Received: from 172.171.212.153 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 04:18:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.171.212.153] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Deleting Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:18:26 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2001 04:18:27.0026 (UTC) FILETIME=[48E5E320:01C0C62C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Now, I do not expect my august opponents to lay down and die - indeed, I >wish them very many more years of prosperity and contentment. But I wish >I knew why they thought that if a man while claiming says "I will do X", >where X is something that is meaningful in a bridge context and happens >with some frequency at the bridge table, he should be treated more >leniently than a man who actually does X without preamble. Possibly because it is easier to deal with X fairly and efficiently before it is committed than afterwards. While the person who actually commits X may be treated harsher, redress of damage without punishment is the goal. -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 Mon Apr 16 14:47:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3G4kq611537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:46:52 +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 f3G4kkt11533 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:46:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.175.240] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14p0uO-0000jf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 05:46:41 +0100 Message-ID: <002901c0c630$23c33760$f0af01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <7f.13090566.28093cf2@aol.com> <001501c0c598$4760c900$f66601d5@pbncomputer> <3AD98793.60CE05F@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 05:45:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > David Burn, as usually, makes a lot of sense. an opinion which is as welcome as it is unprecedented. > Since your case is a hypothetical one, it is impossible to > make this decision. What makes declarer see his hearts as > diamonds ? > That is the question we need to answer, before we can make a > sound decision. I do not know, and I do not care, why declarer thinks his hearts are diamonds in my hypothetical case. Nor do I know, and nor do I care, why declarer in the actual case thought that the card West led was a diamond and not a heart. As I (and others) have said ad nauseam, it is not for umpires to be mind readers; rather, they should rule on the basis of what has actually happened and (in the case of a claim) what has actually been said. In adjudicating on a claim, one assumes that declarer will play according to his statement; well, if his statement is to the effect that "I will incur a penalty for breaking the laws of the game", then let him incur it. [Note the words "to the effect that".] > In the actual case, it is my profound opinion that declarer > made the statement that he did because he momentarily > mistook a diamond for a heart. I would concur with this view, though I would not necessarily distinguish my opinion with the epithet "profound". (Perhaps the word "profound" is close to the Belgian word for "blindingly obvious".) Of course he made an error, though this was (strictly speaking) to mistake a heart for a diamond, and not the other way around. Whether this was "momentary" or not makes no difference at all; the fact is that he announced that he would ruff the card led, and - as far as I can see - the fact therefore is that his score should be as it would have been had he actually done so. [To make sure that I am not perceived to be inconsistent by Adam and others, I should say that the assignment of his score "had he actually done so" could reasonably take into account the hypothesis that dummy would have intervened, though I personally do not believe that it should.] Grattan and / or Kojak have stated as a principle that in adjudicating on a claim, one ignores any statement to the effect that [note as above] the claimer will break the Laws. But if his statement involves a breach of Law that would actually benefit his opponents, why should his statement be ignored? A while ago, I asked: 432 2 None None 5 None None None AKQ 432 None 2 None A 765 None South, declarer in a no trump contract with the lead in his hand, claims the rest because: (a) he believes that the lead is in dummy; (b) he believes that dummy's spades are good. He announces that he will cash three spades, followed by HA. Does he get one trick, or none? If the former, how will you answer the defenders' assertion that they would be better off allowing declarer to follow his statement of claim? But answer came there none, whereas I would quite like to hear from the people whose belief it is that a claim on the basis of an illegal play must be treated as a claim without clarifying statement, since it appears to me to lead to a blatant inequity in the above case. > In the case above, I don't know what to think. You are not alone. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 16 18:14:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3G8ELV24792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:14:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from adansonia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-14.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3G8EEt24749 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:14:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from andira.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.152) by adansonia.wanadoo.fr; 16 Apr 2001 10:14:06 +0200 Received: from beauvillain (193.249.79.209) by andira.wanadoo.fr; 16 Apr 2001 10:14:06 +0200 Message-ID: <001001c0c64c$4b2676c0$d14ff9c1@beauvillain> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" Subject: Tr: [BLML] Insufficient bid out of turn Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:07:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Easy, this one, I try : L27 IB First you ask N if he accepts. If he does, it's over. Says he doesn't. L27, A is now finished, so look B : B is only when it's your turn to speak, so we must use 27C : "Look Law 31". L31 BOOT : B section, Cancel 1C and E must pass all over (for this board ... only). You can still have L23 & L26. Happy Easter, Kenavo A+OB Tout sur le bridge en Bretagne ... et ailleurs sur www.bretagnebridgecomite.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Wright To: Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 7:21 PM Subject: [BLML] Insufficient bid out of turn > > North is dealer, auction is > > North East South West > 1S ... ... 1C > > How do you rule? > -- > Steve Wright > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 16 23:04:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3GD3TE13063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:03:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com (imo-m03.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3GD3Kt13056 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:03:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 3.f.12cdd650 (4316); Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:03:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:03:07 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Deleting To: dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f.12cdd650.280c478b_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_f.12cdd650.280c478b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From Kojak only, 'Cause he's said he'd do something that he's not allowed to do in bridge (which might have been caught without any penalty by partner), and the TD is to decide what is proper to rectify the irregularity, fair for both sides, and "...award any doubtful tricks...." to the non-claiming side. The Law requires the TD to make sure that the claimant, making a bad claim, does not benefit from his mistake. Reading the Laws out of context makes it possible to produce all kinds of funky results. Are TDs supposed to be quoters of the Laws ONLY, and not use their brains in adjusting results when they are tasked to do so? Who needs TDs? Let's just get good caddies that can find the page to look on, and let the ACs work it out....... Kojak --part1_f.12cdd650.280c478b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From Kojak only,


'Cause he's said he'd do something that he's not allowed to do in bridge  
(which might have been caught without any penalty by partner), and the TD is
to decide what is proper to rectify the irregularity, fair for both sides,
and "...award any doubtful tricks...." to the non-claiming side.
The Law requires the TD to make sure that the claimant, making a bad claim,
does not benefit from his mistake. Reading the Laws out of context   makes it
possible to produce all kinds of funky results.

Are TDs supposed to be quoters of the Laws ONLY, and not use their brains in
adjusting results when they are tasked to do so?  Who needs TDs? Let's just
get good caddies that can find the page to look on, and let the ACs work it
out.......    

Kojak
--part1_f.12cdd650.280c478b_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 16 23:04:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3GD3WB13064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:03:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3GD3Kt13055 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:03:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 3.ad.96133c2 (4316); Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:03:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:03:09 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Deleting To: dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ad.96133c2.280c478d_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_ad.96133c2.280c478d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/15/01 8:07:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dburn@btinternet.com writes: > But I wish > I knew why they thought that if a man while claiming says "I will do X", > where X is something that is meaningful in a bridge context and happens > with some frequency at the bridge table, he should be treated more > leniently than a man who actually does X without preamble. > +=+ From Grattan ~ Dear David, I find nothing in those laws which apply from the point of claim onwards to authorize the action you suggest to be appropriate. I abide with the laws as written. A careful reader of Laws 61A and 44C recognizes that a revoke can only occur in the course of play. Clear thinking recognizes that from the point of claim [68A] all play ceases and any purported play subsequently is voided. The claim and the statement of clarification are expressly separate events and the latter is to occur at once when there has been a claim; it is a proposal by claimer of the manner in which he may win the tricks claimed. No play is involved. Nor does the procedure in Law 70 involve play; this Law provides for adjudication - the adjudication of the claim by the Director - and refers only to actions of the players required by, and under the supervision of, the Director: Law 70 is addressed throughout to the Director and provides only for actions by him or under his control. No scope exists in this Law for an infraction by a player, nor can any revoke that is not established at the point of claim be established subsequently and authority for the award of any penalty is absent from this Law. I have expressed my view of this matter in detail to you as a mark of respect for your insight into the language of the Laws. You will have no difficulty with the inferences in a code that should be entirely rewritten in more accessible language and, of all readers, you are the one most capable of drawing my attention to an oversight on my part. My present concern, of course, is only with the law as it is, not with what I or any other would like it to be. Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --part1_ad.96133c2.280c478d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/15/01 8:07:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dburn@btinternet.com writes:




But I wish
I knew why they thought that if a man while claiming says "I will do X",
where X is something that is meaningful in a bridge context and happens
with some frequency at the bridge table, he should be treated more
leniently than a man who actually does X without preamble.

+=+ From Grattan ~
      Dear David,
      I find nothing in those laws which apply from the point of claim
onwards to authorize the action you suggest to be appropriate. I abide with
the laws as written.
      A careful reader of Laws 61A and 44C recognizes that a revoke can only
occur in the course of play. Clear thinking recognizes that from the point of
claim [68A] all play ceases and any purported play subsequently is voided.
The claim and the statement of clarification are expressly separate events
and the latter is to occur at once when there has been a claim; it is a
proposal by claimer of the manner in which he may win the tricks claimed. No
play is involved. Nor does the procedure in Law 70 involve play; this Law
provides for adjudication - the adjudication of the claim by the Director -
and refers only to actions of the players required by, and under the
supervision of, the Director: Law 70 is addressed throughout to the Director
and provides only for actions by him or under his control. No scope exists in
this Law for an infraction by a player, nor can any revoke that is not
established at the point of claim be established subsequently and authority
for the award of any penalty is absent from this Law.
       I have expressed my view of this matter in detail to you as a mark of
respect for your insight into the language of the Laws.  You will have no
difficulty with the inferences in a code that should be entirely rewritten in
more accessible language and, of all readers, you are the one most capable of
drawing my attention to an oversight on my part. My present concern, of
course, is only with the law as it is, not with what I or any other would
like it to be.                          Regards,  ~ Grattan ~    +=+
                         
 
--part1_ad.96133c2.280c478d_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 17 01:48:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3GFlmZ13145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:47:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3GFlgt13141 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:47:42 +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 IAA14879; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 08:47:38 -0700 Message-Id: <200104161547.IAA14879@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:28:27 EDT." Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 08:47:37 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > >Why would the claimer's hand be faced in hypothetical play? If he's > >(hypothetically) playing it out, he's not going to claim. > > We are talking about "hypothetical play" *because* he claimed. And > now his hand will be faced (Law 70B2) and so Steve's right, 64B3 says > the revoke can't be established. The point is, we try to figure out what would have happened if he had played it out instead of claiming. And if he had played it out instead of claiming, he would not have faced his cards, and 64B3 would not apply. I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp. Maybe I'm doing a particularly poor job of explaining myself. -- 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 Apr 17 02:40:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3GGekj24446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:40:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3GGeet24412 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:40:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.95.95f59e6 (4113); Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:40:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <95.95f59e6.280c7a7b@aol.com> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:40:27 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_95.95f59e6.280c7a7b_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_95.95f59e6.280c7a7b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/16/01 11:49:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > The point is, we try to figure out what would have happened if he had > played it out instead of claiming > +=+ from Grattan I see no basis for such an assertion. What the Director does is to adjudicate the validity of the claim. As we saw in the Belgium v. England appeal at Maastricht what he would have done had he played it out is not an issue. The issue is whether his claim is soundly based, the Law that is to be applied is Law 70, and the accidents of play are no longer a consideration. ~ G ~ +=+ --part1_95.95f59e6.280c7a7b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/16/01 11:49:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, adam@irvine.com
writes:


The point is, we try to figure out what would have happened if he had
played it out instead of claiming

+=+ from Grattan
       I see no basis for such an assertion. What  the
Director does is to adjudicate the validity of the
claim. As we saw in the Belgium v. England appeal
at Maastricht what he would have done had he
played it out is not an issue. The issue is whether
his claim is soundly based, the Law that is to be
applied is Law 70, and the accidents of play are no
longer a consideration.            ~ G ~    +=+



--part1_95.95f59e6.280c7a7b_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 17 03:02:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3GH1r401975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 03:01:53 +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 f3GH1jt01928 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 03:01:46 +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 MAA21666; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:03:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010416120027.007bd5c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:00:27 -0500 To: Schoderb@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-Reply-To: <95.95f59e6.280c7a7b@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:40 PM 4/16/2001 EDT, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 4/16/01 11:49:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, adam@irvine.com >writes: > > >The point is, we try to figure out what would have happened if he had >played it out instead of claiming > > > +=+ from Grattan > the >Director does is to adjudicate the validity of the >claim. As we saw in the Belgium v. England appeal >at Maastricht what he would have done had he >played it out is not an issue. The issue is whether >his claim is soundly based, the Law that is to be >applied is Law 70, and the accidents of play are no > +=+ This is what some of us are having a problem understanding. Please clarify. a) Take my case, where a declarer with AQ2 of spades in one hand and Kxx in the other hand claims three tricks while specifically saying that he will lead the King from hand and overtake with the Ace. Obviously, such a line of play is irrational but legal. Obviously, it does not yield 3 tricks, but only two. Is this claim "soundly based"? What are the proper thought processes for a TD in this situation? b) DB's case. Declarer, in his hand, states that he will play his 'top' spades from dummy. In fact, were he to play a spade from dummy the defense would take those tricks. To play a spade from dummy is illegal--declarer is in his hand. What does the TD do in this situation? c) Declarer claims, saying that he will ruff a lead, when in fact this would be a revoke. You say that we determine if his claim is "soundly based", which it evidently is not. OK, so now we apply the rest of L70 to determine the number of tricks to award, evidently ignoring what declarer said he would do if he played the hand out. On what basis do we determine 'equity' for the hand, if we cannot consider what the player would have done had he played the hand out, even when it is to the advantage of the non-claiming side? Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 17 07:46:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3GLinc27190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 07:44:49 +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 f3GLift27151 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 07:44:42 +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 f3GLgGm24936; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:42:16 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200104161547.IAA14879@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200104161547.IAA14879@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:38:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Cc: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The point is, we try to figure out what would have happened if he had >played it out instead of claiming. And if he had played it out >instead of claiming, he would not have faced his cards, and 64B3 would >not apply. > >I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp. Maybe I'm doing >a particularly poor job of explaining myself. I think the immediate problem was that I viewed your "hypothetical play" idea in the context of the claim that, it seemed to me, instigated it, taking it to begin from the point the claim was made - since a claim is a legitimate action which, while its accuracy can be disputed, cannot be rejected out of hand (iow, no one can require claimer to "play it out"). Yet you are including in your hypothesis the assertion that the claim never happened. I don't see how that can be. :-) Having just read Grattan's reply to David Burn of 9 o'clock EDT this morning, I guess I'll just fall back on one of my nephew's favorite expressions, and leave it at that. So... "what he said." :-) 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+AwUBOttnxr2UW3au93vOEQL3DgCY2mevjiBXnZnHwoxos9MPfEap8wCg+RF9 Ndb6X05Q2/X/Y7gY7sohzZM= =BjzL -----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 Apr 17 08:23:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3GMNoo11139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:23:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3GMNht11117 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:23:44 +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 SAA09714 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:23:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA08557 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:23:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:23:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104162223.SAA08557@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Not exactly. Carrying this principle to its logical conclusion, a > declarer might claim in this position: > > 432 > 432 > None > None > None None > AKQ J109 > None None > AKQ J109 > 765 > 765 > None > None > > Spades are trumps. Declarer, who thinks that all his hearts are > diamonds, faces his cards and claims on the basis that he will ruff > three "diamonds" in dummy and three hearts in his hand. Six tricks to > declarer. Not hardly! We cancel the claim statement because it cannot legally be executed (L44C). Defenders get the three tricks they are entitled to, but they don't get any penalty tricks. (I could possibly be persuaded to rule otherwise if declarer failed to expose his hand when he claimed.) Also, see below for answers to Grant's questions. The interesting case would be if someone could construct an example where declarer's revoke would benefit the defense. I believe it is still proper to apply L44C, but here I'm willing to be persuaded. What I'm not likely to be persuaded of is that we can ever apply penalty tricks for a revoke from a hand face up on the table, for whatever reason. No doubt we can always argue that in some different circumstances the hand might not have been face up, but that leads to never-never land. Suppose in the hand above, West is on lead, leads a heart, and declarer claims, stating that he is going to ruff West's lead in dummy. Would it even occur to anyone to think about penalty tricks for dummy's revoke? So what is the difference if declarer plans to revoke from his hand, as long as his cards are face up on the table? > I do not know, and I do not care, why declarer thinks his hearts are > diamonds in my hypothetical case. Nor do I know, and nor do I care, why > declarer in the actual case thought that the card West led was a diamond > and not a heart. As I (and others) have said ad nauseam, it is not for > umpires to be mind readers; rather, they should rule on the basis of > what has actually happened and (in the case of a claim) what has > actually been said. I agree completely with this. > In adjudicating on a claim, one assumes that > declarer will play according to his statement; But only until the statement becomes impossible to execute. > From: Grant Sterling > a) Take my case, where a declarer with AQ2 of spades in one hand and > Kxx in the other hand claims three tricks while specifically saying that > he will lead the King from hand and overtake with the Ace. Obviously, > such a line of play is irrational but legal. Unless there are more facts, declarer's statement stands. What's the problem? > b) DB's case. Declarer, in his hand, states that he will play his > 'top' spades from dummy. In fact, were he to play a spade from dummy > the defense would take those tricks. Defenders have an explicit right to accept declarer's lead from the wrong hand. In this case (again unless there are more facts) they are very likely to do so, or at least whether they will do so is a doubtful point. Thus rule against declarer. The spades are played, and whatever happens, happens. Compare and contrast, though, with the situation where it is to the defender's advantage to have declarer lead from the correct hand. Now nobody will allow the illegal lead. The claim statement has broken down, and we go to L70A. > c) Declarer claims, saying that he will ruff a lead, when in fact this would > be a revoke. While the defenders might (see above) arguably have the right to accept the revoke if it benefits them, they have no right whatsoever to penalty tricks from a faced hand. Thus in most cases, the claim statement has broken down, so go to L70A. This is exactly analogous to a "lead from wrong hand" where the lead does not benefit the defense. (As I also mentioned above, my current belief is that the defenders to not have any right to accept a revoke, even if it benefits them.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 17 08:36:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3GMa1x15517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:36:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3GMZrt15470 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:35:54 +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 PAA24176; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:35:48 -0700 Message-Id: <200104162235.PAA24176@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:38:50 EDT." Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:35:46 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > I think the immediate problem was that I viewed your "hypothetical > play" idea in the context of the claim that, it seemed to me, > instigated it, taking it to begin from the point the claim was made - > since a claim is a legitimate action which, while its accuracy can be > disputed, cannot be rejected out of hand (iow, no one can require > claimer to "play it out"). Yet you are including in your hypothesis > the assertion that the claim never happened. I don't see how that can > be. :-) AAARGH!! I'm getting really frustrated here---I didn't think this was rocket science. I'll try to explain it again, taking one little tiny step at a time, and then hopefully everyone will understand it. In the real world, West leads a heart, and South, who thinks he sees a diamond, faces his hand and claims. You are the TD at the table and need to make a ruling. What I'm saying is that you, while you're there at the table, need to imagine in your mind a scenario in which South had played the hand out and no one had claimed. In this imaginary movie, everything has happened just as it happened at the table, up through the point where West leads the heart. But then, in this imaginary movie, South thinks he sees a diamond and calls a card from dummy, and everyone continues to play the hand as if there were no such thing as claiming. NO, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRING CLAIMER TO PLAY IT OUT, BECAUSE THIS "PLAYING IT OUT" IS HAPPENING IN YOUR MIND, NOT AT THE TABLE. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRING ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING. YOU'RE ENJOYING A MOVIE IN YOUR OWN MIND, AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS REALLY AT THE TABLE IS JUST STARING AT YOU WAITING FOR YOU TO MAKE A RULING. My assertion is that the way to adjudicate a claim is to determine what would have happened in this imaginary movie (the one that's happening just in your mind, not really at the table), and award the score based on what happens. If there is more than one possible imaginary scenario, doubtful points are to be ruled against the claimer. OK so far? Now what will happen in this imaginary movie, the one that's happening only in your mind? Well, South, who thinks the lead is a diamond, will try to trump it. Next, he will lead to the next trick. This establishes the revoke. Remember, you're still in an imaginary movie in your head; none of this is actually at the table. Everyone who's actually at the table is still waiting for you to make a ruling. Back to the imaginary movie: Eventually Trick 13 will be completed, and then the opponents will call the director and say that South revoked. The director will apply the laws and award TWO tricks to the opponents. You're still in your imaginary movie, the one going on in your mind and not at the table---and in this movie, no one had claimed and therefore no one had faced their cards, and therefore the imaginary director in your imaginary movie has no reason to even think about applying L64B3. It doesn't matter that South faced his hand at the table. He didn't face his hand in the imaginary movie, the one in which South played it out and didn't claim, so therefore in the imaginary movie, there's a two-trick penalty. Are you with me so far? Anyway, that's the reason for awarding a two-trick penalty. A two-trick penalty would have happened if South had played it out, because that's how it happened in the movie. And if you think this is too bizarre, if you're thinking something like "How can an imaginary movie be relevant to an actual ruling?"---isn't that basically the way we handle disputed claims? When declarer claims five tricks with AQxx opposite Kxxxx and the suit breaks 4-0, how do we figure out what score to award except to imagine what lines of play might have been followed if declarer had played it out and discovered the 4-0 break? Isn't this the same as imagining what might have happened in an imaginary movie in which declarer had played on instead of claiming? Does this make more sense now? -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 17 11:50:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3H1nOj22306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:49:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3H1nHt22302 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:49:18 +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 14pKcC-000HYi-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:49:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:19:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104162235.PAA24176@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200104162235.PAA24176@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 <200104162235.PAA24176@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Ed Reppert wrote: > >> I think the immediate problem was that I viewed your "hypothetical >> play" idea in the context of the claim that, it seemed to me, >> instigated it, taking it to begin from the point the claim was made - >> since a claim is a legitimate action which, while its accuracy can be >> disputed, cannot be rejected out of hand (iow, no one can require >> claimer to "play it out"). Yet you are including in your hypothesis >> the assertion that the claim never happened. I don't see how that can >> be. :-) > Aaaarrrgghhh! I am 100% behind the imaginary movie. Do I think as TD that South would have spotted it was a diamond lead before the imaginary revoke occurred? If I do, then I award *No* tricks. Claim or no claim. There is *No* doubtful point to resolve. If I'm in doubt then I award two tricks. Is it clear to me that South had spotted in time that it was a diamond lead? Well yes it is. He said so. Long before (in the imaginary movie) he could have established the revoke. How do I rule? It seems obvious to me. My understanding is that *even* DALB can live with my ruling (although secretly he'd have had South lined up against the wall and I'd be there in the squad). This one, guys, is a non-problem. cheers john >AAARGH!! I'm getting really frustrated here---I didn't think this was >rocket science. I'll try to explain it again, taking one little tiny >step at a time, and then hopefully everyone will understand it. > >In the real world, West leads a heart, and South, who thinks he sees a >diamond, faces his hand and claims. > >You are the TD at the table and need to make a ruling. What I'm >saying is that you, while you're there at the table, need to imagine >in your mind a scenario in which South had played the hand out and no >one had claimed. In this imaginary movie, everything has happened >just as it happened at the table, up through the point where West >leads the heart. But then, in this imaginary movie, South thinks he >sees a diamond and calls a card from dummy, and everyone continues to >play the hand as if there were no such thing as claiming. NO, YOU ARE >NOT REQUIRING CLAIMER TO PLAY IT OUT, BECAUSE THIS "PLAYING IT OUT" IS >HAPPENING IN YOUR MIND, NOT AT THE TABLE. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRING >ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING. YOU'RE ENJOYING A MOVIE IN YOUR OWN MIND, AND >EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS REALLY AT THE TABLE IS JUST STARING AT YOU >WAITING FOR YOU TO MAKE A RULING. > >My assertion is that the way to adjudicate a claim is to determine >what would have happened in this imaginary movie (the one that's >happening just in your mind, not really at the table), and award the >score based on what happens. If there is more than one possible >imaginary scenario, doubtful points are to be ruled against the >claimer. > >OK so far? Now what will happen in this imaginary movie, the one >that's happening only in your mind? Well, South, who thinks the lead >is a diamond, will try to trump it. Next, he will lead to the next >trick. This establishes the revoke. Remember, you're still in an >imaginary movie in your head; none of this is actually at the table. >Everyone who's actually at the table is still waiting for you to make >a ruling. Back to the imaginary movie: Eventually Trick 13 will be >completed, and then the opponents will call the director and say that >South revoked. The director will apply the laws and award TWO tricks >to the opponents. You're still in your imaginary movie, the one going >on in your mind and not at the table---and in this movie, no one had >claimed and therefore no one had faced their cards, and therefore the >imaginary director in your imaginary movie has no reason to even think >about applying L64B3. It doesn't matter that South faced his hand at >the table. He didn't face his hand in the imaginary movie, the one in >which South played it out and didn't claim, so therefore in the >imaginary movie, there's a two-trick penalty. > >Are you with me so far? Anyway, that's the reason for awarding a >two-trick penalty. A two-trick penalty would have happened if South >had played it out, because that's how it happened in the movie. And >if you think this is too bizarre, if you're thinking something like >"How can an imaginary movie be relevant to an actual ruling?"---isn't >that basically the way we handle disputed claims? When declarer >claims five tricks with AQxx opposite Kxxxx and the suit breaks 4-0, >how do we figure out what score to award except to imagine what lines >of play might have been followed if declarer had played it out and >discovered the 4-0 break? Isn't this the same as imagining what might >have happened in an imaginary movie in which declarer had played on >instead of claiming? > >Does this make more sense now? > It's absolutely obvious. What *would* *have* *actually* *happened* ? -- 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 Apr 17 12:02:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3H22pK22323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:02:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3H22et22319 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:02:42 +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 14pKpA-000IEA-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:02:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:32:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <7f.13090566.28093cf2@aol.com> <001501c0c598$4760c900$f66601d5@pbncomputer> <3AD98793.60CE05F@village.uunet.be> <002901c0c630$23c33760$f0af01d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <002901c0c630$23c33760$f0af01d5@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 <002901c0c630$23c33760$f0af01d5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes snip > >Grattan and / or Kojak have stated as a principle that in adjudicating >on a claim, one ignores any statement to the effect that [note as above] >the claimer will break the Laws. But if his statement involves a breach >of Law that would actually benefit his opponents, why should his >statement be ignored? A while ago, I asked: > > 432 > 2 > None > None >5 None >None None >AKQ 432 >None 2 > None > A > 765 > None > >South, declarer in a no trump contract with the lead in his hand, claims >the rest because: (a) he believes that the lead is in dummy; (b) he >believes that dummy's spades are good. He announces that he will cash >three spades, followed by HA. Does he get one trick, or none? If the >former, how will you answer the defenders' assertion that they would be >better off allowing declarer to follow his statement of claim? David , even Richard Fleet's mother (a non-mythical creature of 80+ years playing in the Runcorn Ladies Circle Bridge Club) knows this is stupid. But she might have mistaken *one* heart lead by an opponent for a diamond momentarily. And indeed may well have sorted it out by the time it got round to her. Much as it hurts me to further the Vogon's mother's bridge career - I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt in the original case - and tell her to stop being a LOL in the second. > >But answer came there none, whereas I would quite like to hear from the >people whose belief it is that a claim on the basis of an illegal play >must be treated as a claim without clarifying statement, since it >appears to me to lead to a blatant inequity in the above case. > >> In the case above, I don't know what to think. > >You are not alone. > >David Burn >London, England > Etymology. The Vogon Constructor Fleet demolished Earth to make way for a hyper-space by-pass. The process took slightly more than 3 Earth minutes. [Richard Adams: Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy]. Since his University days Richard Fleet has been called the Vogon. He doesn't much like it -but there it is. 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 Apr 17 18:54:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3H8s6005647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:54:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3H8s0t05614 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:54:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.24.76] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14pRFD-0000YD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:53:55 +0100 Message-ID: <004201c0c71b$d5ddc820$4c18073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200104162235.PAA24176@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:53:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John wrote: > It's absolutely obvious. What *would* *have* *actually* *happened* ? Apparently, it isn't. If you determine that what would have actually happened is that declarer would have committed an infraction, you do not make an adjustment on that basis, for Grattan writes: >A careful reader of Laws 61A and 44C recognizes that a revoke can only occur in the course of play. Clear thinking recognizes that from the point of claim [68A] all play ceases and any purported play subsequently is voided. The claim and the statement of clarification are expressly separate events and the latter is to occur at once when there has been a claim; it is a proposal by claimer of the manner in which he may win the tricks claimed. No play is involved. Nor does the procedure in Law 70 involve play; this Law provides for adjudication - the adjudication of the claim by the Director - and refers only to actions of the players required by, and under the supervision of, the Director: Law 70 is addressed throughout to the Director and provides only for actions by him or under his control. No scope exists in this Law for an infraction by a player, nor can any revoke that is not established at the point of claim be established subsequently and authority for the award of any penalty is absent from this Law. I don't really mind this; although I do not personally believe that it will lead to greater equity than possible alternative interpretations, it is at least a sensible and workable interpretation of the existing laws (as one would expect, of course). But there are going to be one or two difficulties with it. You see, what often happens at the table in real life is something like: None A32 None None 2 Q None A West leads a red card - assume for the moment that this really is a diamond. Declarer will detach his trump and play it to the trick, while facing the rest of his cards and saying: "Now I will cash the ace of clubs and play a heart to the ace". Or, as I have seen people do and as I sometimes do myself, he will place on the table one by one his trump, the ace of clubs, and the heart - pointing to dummy's ace of hearts as the thirteenth trick. All of these are valid ways to claim as far as L68A is concerned. They may not be best, but they are valid. The problem will be to determine when play has ceased and when a claim has come into effect. Declarer has, in the above scenarios, "played" his trump - or has he? If the ruling depends on it (because West's card at trick 11 was actually a heart), then there are going to be heated disputes over facts: South will assert that he faced all his cards as part of the claim; East-West will assert that he played the trump, then faced the other two cards; and so forth. This is all most unseemly, and to my way of thinking, one might try to avoid it by ensuring that the ruling is the same whatever the actual sequence of events. However, as Grattan and others (including, on occasion, myself) have said, we must be careful not to let what ought to be prevent us from reasoning clearly about what is. 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 Apr 17 19:04:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3H94Yn09320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:04:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3H94Rt09282 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:04:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.24.76] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14pROc-0003oh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:03:39 +0100 Message-ID: <004d01c0c71d$31ad64c0$4c18073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <7f.13090566.28093cf2@aol.com> <001501c0c598$4760c900$f66601d5@pbncomputer> <3AD98793.60CE05F@village.uunet.be> <002901c0c630$23c33760$f0af01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:02:54 +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 John wrote: > >Grattan and / or Kojak have stated as a principle that in adjudicating > >on a claim, one ignores any statement to the effect that [note as above] > >the claimer will break the Laws. But if his statement involves a breach > >of Law that would actually benefit his opponents, why should his > >statement be ignored? A while ago, I asked: > > > > 432 > > 2 > > None > > None > >5 None > >None None > >AKQ 432 > >None 2 > > None > > A > > 765 > > None > > > >South, declarer in a no trump contract with the lead in his hand, claims > >the rest because: (a) he believes that the lead is in dummy; (b) he > >believes that dummy's spades are good. He announces that he will cash > >three spades, followed by HA. Does he get one trick, or none? If the > >former, how will you answer the defenders' assertion that they would be > >better off allowing declarer to follow his statement of claim? > > David , even Richard Fleet's mother (a non-mythical creature of > 80+ years playing in the Runcorn Ladies Circle Bridge Club) knows this > is stupid. But she might have mistaken *one* heart lead by an opponent > for a diamond momentarily. I think that you may have excerpted the wrong case from another of my posts - your argument above seems to me to apply to my "sextuple revoke" suggestion (which, lest there should be any doubt, was intended to be stupid). 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 Apr 17 19:19:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3H9JdY14593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:19:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3H9JRt14527 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:19:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-209.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.209]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3H9J5q14851 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:19:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADAB736.23BD8E43@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:11:18 +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: Re: [BLML] Deleting References: <001101c0c608$e87cb9a0$3df47ad5@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: > > > Now, I do not expect my august opponents to lay down and die - indeed, I > wish them very many more years of prosperity and contentment. But I wish > I knew why they thought that if a man while claiming says "I will do X", > where X is something that is meaningful in a bridge context and happens > with some frequency at the bridge table, he should be treated more > leniently than a man who actually does X without preamble. > Because the Laws tell us that we can ! The claim statement is not treated as an actual play, but as a clarification of what is in declarer's mind. It is the TD who performs the hypothetical play, and he is the judge as to when the claim statement shall be deemed "broken down". If the TD deems the stated line has "broken down", then Laws (in particular L70E) instruct him to follow all "normal lines". We may be at disagreement over the determination in the actual case, but we should not be in disagreement about the principle. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 17 19:19:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3H9JdF14594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:19:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3H9JRt14526 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:19:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-209.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.209]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3H9Iuq14726 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:19:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADAB63B.3DD837DB@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:07:07 +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] claiming a revoke References: <7f.13090566.28093cf2@aol.com> <001501c0c598$4760c900$f66601d5@pbncomputer> <3AD98793.60CE05F@village.uunet.be> <002901c0c630$23c33760$f0af01d5@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: > > > David Burn, as usually, makes a lot of sense. > > an opinion which is as welcome as it is unprecedented. > If I have never made such a statement, then David, please accept my apologies, because I have great respect for (some of) your views. But your current writing is again of the class that I simply have to disagree with. > > Since your case is a hypothetical one, it is impossible to > > make this decision. What makes declarer see his hearts as > > diamonds ? > > That is the question we need to answer, before we can make a > > sound decision. > > I do not know, and I do not care, why declarer thinks his hearts are > diamonds in my hypothetical case. Nor do I know, and nor do I care, why > declarer in the actual case thought that the card West led was a diamond > and not a heart. Yet that is the single most important issue that we need to answer. It directly determines which lines are "normal" and "irrational" for the player involved. And those determinations are important to the ruling. > As I (and others) have said ad nauseam, it is not for > umpires to be mind readers; Yet it is what they are often required to do. The laws do provide for rules about which way to rule when in doubt, but there are often cases where the TD is not in doubt. > rather, they should rule on the basis of > what has actually happened and (in the case of a claim) what has > actually been said. Of course they should use the evidence at hand to determine the facts, and how much in doubt they are. > In adjudicating on a claim, one assumes that > declarer will play according to his statement; Indeed, one _assumes_. That is, until the contrary can be accepted. We may differ in our level of evidence we need to accept the contrary, but you should not dismiss out of hand the possibility that the TD shall rule that he is in no doubt that declare will actually play as he states, despite the fact that he stated it. Your assumption that declarer is to be held to his statement beyond the boundaries of irrationality is simply untrue. At some point, the stated line breaks down, and declarer shall not be held to it. In order to determine where the stated line breaks down, unfortunately, we need to do a little mind-reading. > well, if his statement is > to the effect that "I will incur a penalty for breaking the laws of the > game", then let him incur it. [Note the words "to the effect that".] > Yes, unless we are convinced that he would not do so in actual play, because he has convinced us that he will notice that he is revoking. Tell me David, are you ruling this on principle, or are you still in doubt whether or not this player will actually make this revoke. I grant you that you only need some doubt. I personally have no doubt. But I am not clear what you are stating. Do you have doubt or are you ruling on principle ? > > In the actual case, it is my profound opinion that declarer > > made the statement that he did because he momentarily > > mistook a diamond for a heart. > > I would concur with this view, though I would not necessarily > distinguish my opinion with the epithet "profound". (Perhaps the word > "profound" is close to the Belgian word for "blindingly obvious".) Of > course he made an error, though this was (strictly speaking) to mistake > a heart for a diamond, and not the other way around. Whether this was > "momentary" or not makes no difference at all; My "profound" opinion was on the fact that it was momentary, and that he would have noticed it before actually playing from dummy - or at the very latest before ruffing. And yes, this does make difference. Again, you are punishing a bad claim statement, not a bad claim. > the fact is that he > announced that he would ruff the card led, and - as far as I can see - > the fact therefore is that his score should be as it would have been had > he actually done so. [To make sure that I am not perceived to be > inconsistent by Adam and others, I should say that the assignment of his > score "had he actually done so" could reasonably take into account the > hypothesis that dummy would have intervened, though I personally do not > believe that it should.] > If you are ruling that he revokes on the simple fact that he said he would, then you are manifestly wrong. You must allow for the possibility that you rule that the stated line "breaks down", just as the Laws state that you can (L70E). You cannot ignore this and as long as you keep saying "he shall ruff because he has said he would", you are going against the Laws of the game. > Grattan and / or Kojak have stated as a principle that in adjudicating > on a claim, one ignores any statement to the effect that [note as above] > the claimer will break the Laws. But if his statement involves a breach > of Law that would actually benefit his opponents, why should his > statement be ignored? A while ago, I asked: > I do not believe that Grattan and or Kojak have actually said this. For they would be wrong as well. Of course it is possible to include a revoke in the "hypothetical play" after the claim. If declarer has dropped a card on the floor, one of the "normal" lines for him could clearly be to ruff/revoke and allow the revoke to become established, before discovering a missing card. In that case, the revoke and all its penalties should be included in the claim adjudication. > 432 > 2 > None > None > 5 None > None None > AKQ 432 > None 2 > None > A > 765 > None > > South, declarer in a no trump contract with the lead in his hand, claims > the rest because: (a) he believes that the lead is in dummy; (b) he > believes that dummy's spades are good. He announces that he will cash > three spades, followed by HA. Does he get one trick, or none? If the > former, how will you answer the defenders' assertion that they would be > better off allowing declarer to follow his statement of claim? > > But answer came there none, whereas I would quite like to hear from the > people whose belief it is that a claim on the basis of an illegal play > must be treated as a claim without clarifying statement, since it > appears to me to lead to a blatant inequity in the above case. > I agree with you David, that declarer should be held to his claim statement, which has not yet become clearly broken down. Declarer shall lead from dummy, and one possible outcome is that defenders accept this and get four tricks. Zero to declarer. You see David, we are not far apart. Please accept that there can be cases where you are in no doubt that declare will notice that his stated line has broken down, and I will not harass you any longer on the actual case at hand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 17 21:00:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3HAxZs00200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:59:35 +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 f3HAxSt00150 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:59:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.105.4] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14pTCa-00000B-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:59:21 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c0c72d$5b49e8c0$046901d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <7f.13090566.28093cf2@aol.com> <001501c0c598$4760c900$f66601d5@pbncomputer> <3AD98793.60CE05F@village.uunet.be> <002901c0c630$23c33760$f0af01d5@pbncomputer> <3ADAB63B.3DD837DB@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:58:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > > Grattan and / or Kojak have stated as a principle that in adjudicating > > on a claim, one ignores any statement to the effect that [note as above] > > the claimer will break the Laws. > I do not believe that Grattan and or Kojak have actually > said this. > For they would be wrong as well. I quote again: >A careful reader of Laws 61A and 44C recognizes that a revoke can only occur in the course of play. Clear thinking recognizes that from the point of claim [68A] all play ceases and any purported play subsequently is voided. The claim and the statement of clarification are expressly separate events and the latter is to occur at once when there has been a claim; it is a proposal by claimer of the manner in which he may win the tricks claimed. No play is involved. Nor does the procedure in Law 70 involve play; this Law provides for adjudication - the adjudication of the claim by the Director - and refers only to actions of the players required by, and under the supervision of, the Director: Law 70 is addressed throughout to the Director and provides only for actions by him or under his control. No scope exists in this Law for an infraction by a player, nor can any revoke that is not established at the point of claim be established subsequently and authority for the award of any penalty is absent from this Law. Now, whereas I am not sure that this is the most equitable way of doing things, it is certainly a workable way of doing things, and I am quite prepared to accept that it should be the only way. However... > Of course it is possible to include a revoke in the > "hypothetical play" after the claim. If declarer has > dropped a card on the floor, one of the "normal" lines for > him could clearly be to ruff/revoke and allow the revoke to > become established, before discovering a missing card. > In that case, the revoke and all its penalties should be > included in the claim adjudication. I don't think Grattan would agree with you, based on what he has said above. However, it does seem to me a little odd that one would (in effect) allow declarer to discover the card on the floor "without penalty" because he has claimed, whereas he would (probably) not have discovered it if he had played. > You see David, we are not far apart. Please accept that > there can be cases where you are in no doubt that declarer > will notice that his stated line has broken down, and I will > not harass you any longer on the actual case at hand. In view of Grattan's words above and the considerable authority of their source, I have no further opinion to offer on the actual case. 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 Apr 17 21:11:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3HBAwS04233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:10:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3HBApt04195 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:10:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f3HBAcW18215 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:10:38 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:10 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke 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: <200104162235.PAA24176@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam wrote: > Are you with me so far? Anyway, that's the reason for awarding a > two-trick penalty. A two-trick penalty would have happened if South > had played it out, because that's how it happened in the movie. But real life ain't like it is in the movies. In real life you have make a ruling at a point where a penalty-getting revoke is impossible by law. > And > if you think this is too bizarre, if you're thinking something like > "How can an imaginary movie be relevant to an actual ruling?"---isn't > that basically the way we handle disputed claims? But I still think the movie is relevant. In the actual case the claimer noticed, and indicated, immediately that he had spotted the problem so I would end the movie with scene based on a ruling without a statement. In a different scenario (eg where declarer calls for a revoke from dummy) then my movie dummy objects and the ruling is similar. With the actual hand (and assuming no immediate indication from declarer) I would happily rule that a small heart would have been played from dummy with whatever deleterious effects that would have had on his trick-taking potential. With yet a different hand I'd happily rule that declarer would indeed revoke when doing so costs him the natural loss of trick (eg he loses trump control). In the director's cut dummy, Alain Delon, smoothly pulls a gun from his jacket and blows declarer away. David Burn reluctantly issues Alain a PPw for behavioural offences despite sympathising with his position. 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 Apr 18 00:09:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3HE85t21239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:08:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3HE7xt21212 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:07:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id k.ad.97330a7 (1770); Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:07:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:07:45 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: cfgcs@eiu.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ad.97330a7.280da831_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_ad.97330a7.280da831_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/16/01 1:03:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cfgcs@eiu.edu writes: > a) Take my case, where a declarer with AQ2 of spades in one hand and > Kxx in the other hand claims three tricks while specifically saying that > he will lead the King from hand and overtake with the Ace. Obviously, > such a line of play is irrational but legal. > +=+ From Grattan: To clear the mind, may we look hard at the word 'irrational' here? The exclusion of the irrational in the footnote to Laws 69-70-71 does not apply to claimer's proposals; it applies to what the TD may substitute for the claimer's line when he is obliged not to follow it in adjudicating (and also to certain judgements to be made by the Director in allowing or not allowing retraction of an acquiescence or a concession). So, however 'irrational' claimer's proposals may be, if in play they would involve no illegality the Director accepts them. At the point when a proposal presented is unacceptable the Director must select an alternative action - this may be forced if it is the substitution of a legal card, or otherwise it may be at his option. In the latter event he selects that 'normal' action which is the least successful for claimer of those available. By following this procedure the Director establishes how many tricks he judges to be won and adjudicates accordingly. One other reference; the distinction is nicely made in 69A that what occurs after the point of claim is not play. Satis verborum. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --part1_ad.97330a7.280da831_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/16/01 1:03:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cfgcs@eiu.edu
writes:



a) Take my case, where a declarer with AQ2 of spades in one hand and
Kxx in the other hand claims three tricks while specifically saying that
he will lead the King from hand and overtake with the Ace.  Obviously,
such a line of play is irrational but legal.





  +=+ From Grattan:
         To clear the mind, may we look hard at
the word 'irrational' here? The exclusion of the
irrational in the footnote to Laws 69-70-71 does
not apply to claimer's proposals; it applies to
what the TD may substitute for the claimer's line
when he is obliged not to follow it in adjudicating
(and also to certain judgements to be made by the
Director in allowing or not allowing retraction of
an acquiescence or a concession).
        So, however 'irrational' claimer's proposals
may be, if in play they would involve no illegality
the Director accepts them.  At the point when a
proposal presented is unacceptable the Director
must select an alternative action - this may be
forced if it is the substitution of a legal card, or
otherwise it may be at his option. In the latter
event he selects that 'normal' action which is
the least successful for claimer of those
available. By following this procedure the
Director establishes how many tricks he judges
to be won and adjudicates accordingly.
      One other reference; the distinction is
nicely made in 69A that what occurs after the
point of claim is not play.  
       Satis verborum.             ~ Grattan ~ +=+

     
--part1_ad.97330a7.280da831_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 18 00:25:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3HEP5v27334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:25:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3HEOwt27302 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:24:59 +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 KAA29536 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:24:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA15986 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:24:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:24:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104171424.KAA15986@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Of course it is possible to include a revoke in the > "hypothetical play" after the claim. If declarer has > dropped a card on the floor, one of the "normal" lines for > him could clearly be to ruff/revoke and allow the revoke to > become established, before discovering a missing card. > In that case, the revoke and all its penalties should be > included in the claim adjudication. Suppose dummy has dropped a card on the floor, and declarer claims before anyone notices, stating a line of play that includes a revoke from dummy. Would you still exact penalty tricks? If yes, why does L64B3 not apply? If no, why is declarer's faced hand different from dummy's faced 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 Wed Apr 18 01:14:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3HFEB906494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:14:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3HFE5t06490 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:14:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-151.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.151]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3HFE0n21079 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:14:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADC2ED5.BB82AC9F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:53:57 +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] L16C after a non-established revoke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A local teams tournament with some (very) good teams. NS below are a Belgian National pair - East plays in the Belgian second division. board 2 (NS/E) QT654 W N E S 832 1He Dble T4 pass 3Sp 4He 4Sp AQ4 all pass J932 - Q7 AKJT954 KJ532 98 T2 K865 AK87 6 AQ76 J973 East leads the Ace of Hearts and plays the 9 of diamonds, for Queen and King. West returns Hearts, ruffed, and the Ace of Spades reveals the bad trump break. The position is now: QT65 8 T AQ4 J93 - - KJT9 J532 8 T2 K865 K8 - A76 (<-dummy) J973 Declarer now leads a small club from table. West contributes the 2 of diamonds, North takes the Ace and East plays the five. Now West says "didn't you play a diamond ?" (he was rather angry as well) "I have clubs" and they call the TD. I explain that the revoke has not been established. The diamond becomes a Major penalty card, and I explain that this can involve lead penalties. West should contribute a club to this trick, after which North can change their card. If North changes, then so can East. I make certain that all the players have understood all the implications (and they admit they have). West pleys the two of Clubs to the trick. North changes the Ace to the Queen. East leaves his five. North now plays Ace and another club, but when they don't break, the contract trickles one down. Now North says "but he has seen my Ace ?". So I check further and find L16C2, which indeed tells us that the change of plays is UI to East. I return to the table after the next board and ask East why he ducked the club. His reply : "firstly, because of the four clubs in dummy, and secondly, because of the penalty cards and lead restrictions. And then, on instinct". Fact is that at the other table, another national pair was rather mad at oneanother, because there they did take the King of Clubs and allowed the contract to make. A few more (perhaps relevant) facts : -There was no information about the number of clubs that west had (he thought diamonds were played and he said things to the effect that he held "clubs", either one or many) -East-West play very few signals, the 2 does not show count. -neither does the nine of diamonds show count -and the two of diamonds bears no real meaning either -at the AC hearing, North stated that he did realize he could have played the 10 of diamonds, but this was not a certain winning line, since East might well have the Jack. -also at the hearing, East stated he could have counted North for the Ace of clubs, partner not having bid and shown five points already. The AC decided that East could have done it wrong without the UI, and decided to award the contract. 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 Wed Apr 18 02:04:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3HG3sr06522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:03:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3HG3mt06518 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:03:48 +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 JAA09846; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:03:44 -0700 Message-Id: <200104171603.JAA09846@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L16C after a non-established revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:53:57 +0200." <3ADC2ED5.BB82AC9F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:03:43 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > A local teams tournament with some (very) good teams. > NS below are a Belgian National pair - East plays in the > Belgian second division. > > board 2 (NS/E) > > QT654 W N E S > 832 1He Dble > T4 pass 3Sp 4He 4Sp > AQ4 all pass > J932 - > Q7 AKJT954 > KJ532 98 > T2 K865 > AK87 > 6 > AQ76 > J973 > > East leads the Ace of Hearts and plays the 9 of diamonds, > for Queen and King. West returns Hearts, ruffed, and the Ace > of Spades reveals the bad trump break. The position is now: > > QT65 > 8 > T > AQ4 > J93 - > - KJT9 > J532 8 > T2 K865 > K8 > - > A76 (<-dummy) > J973 > > Declarer now leads a small club from table. West contributes > the 2 of diamonds, North takes the Ace and East plays the > five. > Now West says "didn't you play a diamond ?" (he was rather > angry as well) "I have clubs" and they call the TD. > I explain that the revoke has not been established. The > diamond becomes a Major penalty card, and I explain that > this can involve lead penalties. > West should contribute a club to this trick, after which > North can change their card. If North changes, then so can > East. > I make certain that all the players have understood all the > implications (and they admit they have). > > West pleys the two of Clubs to the trick. > North changes the Ace to the Queen. > East leaves his five. > > North now plays Ace and another club, but when they don't > break, the contract trickles one down. > > Now North says "but he has seen my Ace ?". > So I check further and find L16C2, which indeed tells us > that the change of plays is UI to East. > > I return to the table after the next board and ask East why > he ducked the club. His reply : > "firstly, because of the four clubs in dummy, and secondly, > because of the penalty cards and lead restrictions. And > then, on instinct". > > Fact is that at the other table, another national pair was > rather mad at oneanother, because there they did take the > King of Clubs and allowed the contract to make. > > A few more (perhaps relevant) facts : > > -There was no information about the number of clubs that > west had (he thought diamonds were played and he said things > to the effect that he held "clubs", either one or many) > -East-West play very few signals, the 2 does not show count. > -neither does the nine of diamonds show count > -and the two of diamonds bears no real meaning either > -at the AC hearing, North stated that he did realize he > could have played the 10 of diamonds, but this was not a > certain winning line, since East might well have the Jack. > -also at the hearing, East stated he could have counted > North for the Ace of clubs, partner not having bid and shown > five points already. > > The AC decided that East could have done it wrong without > the UI, and decided to award the contract. > > Comments ? Just one. From East's point of view, if North doesn't have the ace of clubs, just what the heck is he bidding 3S on????? -- 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 Apr 18 02:32:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3HGW0f06545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:32:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3HGVst06541 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:31:55 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id SAA07203; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:30:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Apr 17 13:37:37 2001 +0200 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 <01K2IAYXNGJW005LWG@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:36:56 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2ZN3HYWG>; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:36:20 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:36:43 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B81B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/16/01 11:49:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, adam@irvine.com writes: The point is, we try to figure out what would have happened if he had played it out instead of claiming +=+ from Grattan I see no basis for such an assertion. What the Director does is to adjudicate the validity of the claim. As we saw in the Belgium v. England appeal at Maastricht what he would have done had he played it out is not an issue. The issue is whether his claim is soundly based, the Law that is to be applied is Law 70, and the accidents of play are no longer a consideration. ~ G ~ +=+ I would prefer to be remembered at what happened in the B-E match as rarely as possible. To be honest I agree with the statement that we try to figure out what would have happened if the hand had een played out. That is what needs to be done all the time, how else to decide the result on the board? And Grattan's statement is not in contradiction with that approach. But we do not base our decision on what really happened in case the table decides to continue play when a claim has occurred. Which is something else. Can we ask Grattan to clarify his statement that adjudicating the validity of a claim can be done without a construction of the continuation of play? t on -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 18 05:25:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3HJNkt25838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:23:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3HJNdt25834 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:23:40 +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 PAA02325 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:31:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200104171931.PAA02325@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L16C after a non-established revoke Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3ADC2ED5.BB82AC9F@village.uunet.be> References: <3ADC2ED5.BB82AC9F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:31:06 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry, limited snippage here. I tried, but too much is important. On 17 April 2001 at 13:53, Herman De Wael wrote: >A local teams tournament with some (very) good teams. >NS below are a Belgian National pair - East plays in the >Belgian second division. > >board 2 (NS/E) > > QT654 W N E S > 832 1He Dble > T4 pass 3Sp 4He 4Sp > AQ4 all pass >J932 - >Q7 AKJT954 >KJ532 98 >T2 K865 > AK87 > 6 > AQ76 > J973 > >East leads the Ace of Hearts and plays the 9 of diamonds, >for Queen and King. West returns Hearts, ruffed, and the Ace >of Spades reveals the bad trump break. The position is now: > > QT65 > 8 > T > AQ4 >J93 - >- KJT9 >J532 8 >T2 K865 > K8 > - > A76 (<-dummy) > J973 > >Declarer now leads a small club from table. West contributes >the 2 of diamonds, North takes the Ace and East plays the >five. >Now West says "didn't you play a diamond ?" (he was rather >angry as well) "I have clubs" and they call the TD. Why was west angry? But at least everything is fine to here (well, maybe "a club" is preferable to "clubs"). >I explain that the revoke has not been established. The >diamond becomes a Major penalty card, and I explain that >this can involve lead penalties. I assume your explanation of when the lead penalties would kick in was thorough enough for this table. >West should contribute a club to this trick, after which >North can change their card. If North changes, then so can >East. >I make certain that all the players have understood all the >implications (and they admit they have). > >West pleys the two of Clubs to the trick. >North changes the Ace to the Queen. >East leaves his five. > >North now plays Ace and another club, but when they don't >break, the contract trickles one down. > >Now North says "but he has seen my Ace ?". >So I check further and find L16C2, which indeed tells us >that the change of plays is UI to East. > >I return to the table after the next board and ask East why >he ducked the club. His reply : >"firstly, because of the four clubs in dummy, and secondly, >because of the penalty cards and lead restrictions. And >then, on instinct". > I worry about this; I realize it's probably the best thing to do, but if you asked me, I would (honestly, if my game was on that day) tell you "I have no idea. I've totally forgotten that hand." I hate interrupting playing players about previous boards specifically because it throws me off so much when it happens to me, and, of course, that trained 7- minute short-term memory mentioned above. Of course, avoiding gaining the lead on this trick is almost certainly in East's best interest (unless N has a stiff club, a 8-card spade suit, or something equally weird). It's more likely that he would have to lose a trick paying the lead restriction penalty than that he's going to go to bed with the CK. Much more likely. Also, if he takes the CK, and declarer lets East lead anything, what does he lead? A club to West's (supposed) CA? Then West has to lead the diamond, almost certainly a bad thing. A diamond? Still a bad thing. A heart? Into either a ruff/sluff or ruff on board, club to West (again supposed) A, and again, diamond out. I really can't see, given the playing conditions East was under, anybody understanding the Laws explained to the table taking the CK. It's interesting, though; I probably wouldn't have thought this out had the MPC not been on the table. Shows why I don't win the big events, eh? >A few more (perhaps relevant) facts : > >-There was no information about the number of clubs that >west had (he thought diamonds were played and he said things >to the effect that he held "clubs", either one or many) >-East-West play very few signals, the 2 does not show count. >-neither does the nine of diamonds show count >-and the two of diamonds bears no real meaning either All of this simply reduces the UI available to East. Don't think it makes any difference to the hand. >-at the AC hearing, North stated that he did realize he >could have played the 10 of diamonds, but this was not a >certain winning line, since East might well have the Jack. I want to make a smartarse comment here, but really, North did everything properly. He followed the Laws, didn't get angry, asked the TD a reasonable question (she did ask it reasonably, didn't she?), and showed up to East/West's appeal to state her side's facts. I really see no double-shot attempt here, despite my sometimes hair-trigger. >-also at the hearing, East stated he could have counted >North for the Ace of clubs, partner not having bid and shown >five points already. > Well, that would be the key for me. In fact, in my partnerships, West's hand is a 1S call after 1H-X; borderline, but definately on the "bid" side of the line. OTOH, I play "ignore doubles in 1-level responses". With OTGH, however, with only 3 spades and 6 diamonds, and the same 7-count, I might pass; I play 2-level bids NF-bailout, and I don't mind 1H at all. But I cannot imagine passing the 9-count made by exchanging the two unplayed jacks for the CA, even with a 3262 shape. Of course, those are *my* peers, not East's. Their systems similar enough to standard (whatever standard) for this argument to apply? OTOH, this wasn't brought up at the table. But I've already covered why I am willing to give East some leeway on that. I'd roll it back to 4S-1, under "K is not a LA under the circumstances." Yeah, the other table played the K, but he didn't have the MPC or the potential lead penalties, which are *AI to this East*. Interesting, though. 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 Apr 18 06:41:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3HKf5t09432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:41:06 +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 f3HKevt09419 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:40:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.76.202] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14pcHN-0007Rz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:40:53 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01c0c77e$9697a060$ca4c01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3ADC2ED5.BB82AC9F@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] L16C after a non-established revoke Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:40:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > board 2 (NS game, dealer East) > > QT654 W N E S > 832 1H Dble > T4 Pass 3S 4H 4S > AQ4 All pass > J932 None > Q7 AKJT954 > KJ532 98 > T2 K865 > AK87 > 6 > AQ76 > J973 My main purpose in sending this message is just to get the deal into a format with which my feeble brain can cope; I suggest that further quotations use the layouts above and below rather than the original :) > East leads the Ace of Hearts and plays the 9 of diamonds, > for Queen and King. West returns Hearts, ruffed, and the Ace > of Spades reveals the bad trump break. The position is now: > > QT65 > 8 > T > AQ4 > J93 None > None KJT9 > J532 8 > T2 K865 > K8 > None > A76 <-dummy > J973 > > Declarer now leads a small club from table. West contributes > the 2 of diamonds, North takes the Ace and East plays the > five. > Now West says "didn't you play a diamond ?" (he was rather > angry as well) "I have clubs" and they call the TD. > I explain that the revoke has not been established. The > diamond becomes a Major penalty card, and I explain that > this can involve lead penalties. > West should contribute a club to this trick, after which > North can change their card. If North changes, then so can > East. > I make certain that all the players have understood all the > implications (and they admit they have). > > West pleys the two of Clubs to the trick. > North changes the Ace to the Queen. > East leaves his five. > > North now plays Ace and another club, but when they don't > break, the contract trickles one down. > > Now North says "but he has seen my Ace ?". > So I check further and find L16C2, which indeed tells us > that the change of plays is UI to East. > > I return to the table after the next board and ask East why > he ducked the club. His reply : > "firstly, because of the four clubs in dummy, and secondly, > because of the penalty cards and lead restrictions. And > then, on instinct". > > Fact is that at the other table, another national pair was > rather mad at one another, because there they did take the > King of Clubs and allowed the contract to make. > [snip] > The AC decided that East could have done it wrong without > the UI, and decided to award the contract. > Comments ? Well, East knew that North had the ace of clubs anyway (the bidding would not have been anything like the actual auction if West instead of North had that card). But if the AC, who presumably interrogated the players carefully and who presumably have some knowledge of East's standard, have come to the conclusion that for this East on this deal, a logical alternative play would be to take the queen of clubs with the king - who am I or anybody else to comment? 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 Apr 18 10:08:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3I06BS06973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:06:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3I062t06965 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:06:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14pfTl-000Ev1-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:05:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:32:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <7f.13090566.28093cf2@aol.com> <001501c0c598$4760c900$f66601d5@pbncomputer> <3AD98793.60CE05F@village.uunet.be> <002901c0c630$23c33760$f0af01d5@pbncomputer> <004d01c0c71d$31ad64c0$4c18073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <004d01c0c71d$31ad64c0$4c18073e@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 <004d01c0c71d$31ad64c0$4c18073e@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes snip >> David , even Richard Fleet's mother (a non-mythical creature of >> 80+ years playing in the Runcorn Ladies Circle Bridge Club) knows this >> is stupid. But she might have mistaken *one* heart lead by an >opponent >> for a diamond momentarily. > >I think that you may have excerpted the wrong case from another of my >posts - your argument above seems to me to apply to my "sextuple revoke" >suggestion (which, lest there should be any doubt, was intended to be >stupid). I did, sorry. > >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 18 11:10:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3I19ho09007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:09:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe48.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3I19at09000 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:09:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:09:28 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.70.112] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3ADC2ED5.BB82AC9F@village.uunet.be> <001b01c0c77e$9697a060$ca4c01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] L16C after a non-established revoke Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:07:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2001 01:09:28.0828 (UTC) FILETIME=[37A1ABC0:01C0C7A4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L16C after a non-established revoke | Herman wrote: | | > board 2 (NS game, dealer East) | > | > QT654 W N E S | > 832 1H Dble | > T4 Pass 3S 4H 4S | > AQ4 All pass | > J932 None | > Q7 AKJT954 | > KJ532 98 | > T2 K865 | > AK87 | > 6 | > AQ76 | > J973 thanx -s- | > East leads the Ace of Hearts and plays the 9 of diamonds, | > for Queen and King. West returns Hearts, ruffed, and the Ace | > of Spades reveals the bad trump break. The position is now: | > | > QT65 | > 8 | > T | > AQ4 | > J93 None | > None KJT9 | > J532 8 | > T2 K865 | > K8 | > None | > A76 <-dummy | > J973 | > | > Declarer now leads a small club from table. West contributes | > the 2 of diamonds, North takes the Ace and East plays the | > five. | > Now West says "didn't you play a diamond ?" (he was rather | > angry as well) "I have clubs" and they call the TD. | > I explain that the revoke has not been established. The | > diamond becomes a Major penalty card, and I explain that | > this can involve lead penalties. | > West should contribute a club to this trick, after which | > North can change their card. If North changes, then so can | > East. | > I make certain that all the players have understood all the | > implications (and they admit they have). | > | > West pleys the two of Clubs to the trick. | > North changes the Ace to the Queen. | > East leaves his five. | > | > North now plays Ace and another club, but when they don't | > break, the contract trickles one down. Bad bridge skill had everything to do with the outcome of the hand and UI nothing. Club Q, ace, diamond ace, ruff diamond, ruff heart high, overruff diamond, exit club and the spade tenace must score. | > Now North says "but he has seen my Ace ?". | > So I check further and find L16C2, which indeed tells us | > that the change of plays is UI to East. | > | > I return to the table after the next board and ask East why | > he ducked the club. His reply : | > "firstly, because of the four clubs in dummy, and secondly, | > because of the penalty cards and lead restrictions. And | > then, on instinct". | > | > Fact is that at the other table, another national pair was | > rather mad at one another, because there they did take the | > King of Clubs and allowed the contract to make. | > | | [snip] | | > The AC decided that East could have done it wrong without | > the UI, and decided to award the contract. | | | > Comments ? | Well, East knew that North had the ace of clubs anyway (the bidding | would not have been anything like the actual auction if West instead of | North had that card). But if the AC, who presumably interrogated the | players carefully and who presumably have some knowledge of East's | standard, have come to the conclusion that for this East on this deal, a | logical alternative play would be to take the queen of clubs with the | king - who am I or anybody else to comment? Club king, HK ruffed high club pitched- not enough entries for a coup. No damage. on second thought, I think I was wrong about bad bridge skill having everything to do with the outcome. Lawyering had everything to do with the outcome. regards roger pewick | 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 Apr 18 17:51:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3I7o7l22737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:50:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3I7nwt22730 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:50:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-31.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.31]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3I7nrq20536 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 09:49:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADC6134.A45B5238@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:28:52 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104171424.KAA15986@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > Of course it is possible to include a revoke in the > > "hypothetical play" after the claim. If declarer has > > dropped a card on the floor, one of the "normal" lines for > > him could clearly be to ruff/revoke and allow the revoke to > > become established, before discovering a missing card. > > In that case, the revoke and all its penalties should be > > included in the claim adjudication. > > Suppose dummy has dropped a card on the floor, and declarer claims > before anyone notices, stating a line of play that includes a revoke > from dummy. Would you still exact penalty tricks? > No. > If yes, why does L64B3 not apply? > It does. > If no, why is declarer's faced hand different from dummy's faced hand? > -- Because it is also faced in the "imaginary movie". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 18 20:28:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3IARME04759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:27:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3IAREt04753 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:27:15 +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 MAA11734; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:26:32 +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 MAA23702; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:26:44 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010418123015.00827150@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:30:15 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L16C after a non-established revoke Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200104171603.JAA09846@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:03 17/04/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Herman De Wael wrote: > >> A local teams tournament with some (very) good teams. >> NS below are a Belgian National pair - East plays in the >> Belgian second division. AG : doesn't make him a good player, huh ? >> board 2 (NS/E) >> >> QT654 W N E S >> 832 1He Dble >> T4 pass 3Sp 4He 4Sp >> AQ4 all pass >> J932 - >> Q7 AKJT954 >> KJ532 98 >> T2 K865 >> AK87 >> 6 >> AQ76 >> J973 >> North now plays Ace and another club, but when they don't >> break, the contract trickles one down. >> >> Now North says "but he has seen my Ace ?". >> So I check further and find L16C2, which indeed tells us >> that the change of plays is UI to East. AG : it is indeed, but the fact that North had CA was already known to East, if he is sound enough to count points (the 3S bid is played by most as quite constructive). >> I return to the table after the next board and ask East why >> he ducked the club. His reply : >> "firstly, because of the four clubs in dummy, and secondly, >> because of the penalty cards and lead restrictions. And >> then, on instinct". AG : one might argue that, at the other table, the great player didn't find the play, so why should this one find it ? But it is irrelevant here : since both Easts had the same information (the CA is North's), the fact that the great East didn't find the right play doesn't mean that the other one has no right to find it. The good play of a small club is prompted by information that every average-or-better player has. Some great player had a blind spot ? So what ? East's point that, with lead penalties are around, he'd better not take the trick, is a good one. And the fact that partner has a MPC is AI, isn't it ? >> The AC decided that East could have done it wrong without >> the UI, and decided to award the contract. >> >> Comments ? AG : those who comment on L16A lines (LA) seem to forget that L16A deals with UI *from partner*. L16C2 is the right thing. Does the fact that the word "logical" is omitted in the wording of L16C2 mean anything ? 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 Apr 18 21:26:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3IBPu206013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:25:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3IBPmt06004 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:25:50 +1000 (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 14pq5Z-0001Qq-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:25:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:00:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Laws for players (was Re: [BLML] Timing of TD call) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes >_______________________________________________________________ > >I offered to ACBL, more than two years ago, 33 flow charts >illustrating chapters 5 to 6 (more usefull Laws). They are >made with Powerpoint and can be put on a WEB with links >to law texts. I have a French an an English version of them >and use them to teach basic laws to beginners. These flow >charts are part of a French illustrated book of Laws I >sell, this side of the pound, to club directors and to >many players. The English version exists but do not have >permission to use law texts in America (ACBL copyright). > >I received some help from ACBL to make sure these charts >are right, and was told "it is a great job", but I doubt >now they move further. I think such charts could be usefull >if "Laws for players" is put on a web. IMHO such a publication >should also have examples (not an easy task). I would be very happy to put them all on my Lawspage. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 18 21:26:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3IBQ3J06021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:26:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3IBPtt06011 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:25:55 +1000 (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 14pq5h-0001QE-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:25:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:13:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Re: logical alternatives References: <009801c0c2c7$a2083060$205c883e@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <009801c0c2c7$a2083060$205c883e@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f3IBPwt06014 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk James Vickers writes > DWS wrote: > > Well, I am listening.  What discrepancy? >   > I'm so pleased someone is listening. The discrepancy is that the > majority of directors whose opinions I've heard on this matter > attempt to rule one way when applying Law 16A, while the Laws of > the game and the EBU TD Guide tell them to rule another way. This > is admirably illustrated by Alain's example: >   > >AG : IBTD. If, barring the UI, doubling is 50% and bidding is 50%, > albeit > >with many possibilities, none of which would be made by more than > 20% of > >the player's peers, we shouldn't allow the double. > > > >An example : AQJxxx > >-- > >Kx > >AQ10xx > > > >After 1S 2H ...p p > > > >I guess about 40-50% would double, the other being spread between > 3C, 4C, > >3H. The 'suggested' double should not stand. >   > Let's say for the sake of argument that the offender's options > absent the UI would be: double (40%), 3C (20%), 4C (20%), 3H > (20%). We'll take it as read that the action taken by offender was > suggested over and above these alternatives by the UI and caused > damage. >   > What the Law book says is that the TD should see if the offender > has chosen "from among _logical_ alternative actions one which > could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > extraneous information" (L16A). The EBU defines  a logical > alternative as "a call or play which three or more in ten of > equivalent players could be expected to make in the particular > situation" (EBU TD Guide 16.6). Since all other conceivable options > fall well below the required standard of 30%, the offender had no > logical alternative to double and no adjustment of the score can be > considered. >   > What Alain and others seem to be saying is that there are two > alternative actions: double (40%) and "not-double" (60%). > "Not-double" now becomes a logical alternative and the score may be > adjusted as the offender could have chosen "not-double". > Unfortunately "not-double" is not an action, it is the sum of many > different actions, and it is clear from the Laws and the TD Guide > that "logical alternative" refers to _a call or play_ and not all > other conceivable calls or plays in their entirety, however much > you may wish it were otherwise. >   > Even if you try to lump all alternatives in this case together > under the category of "bidding on" and declare "bidding on" to come > under the definition of "logical alternative", it would not take > much ingenuity to adjust the example hand slightly to bring pass > into the running. If the alternatives were now: double (60%), pass > (20%), 3C (20%), would you still cancel the double? >   > I could only rule the way Alain suggests by acting against what the > Laws and the TD Guide say. If the offender were then to ask me > where the Laws give me sanction for such a ruling (as I believe > they would have a right to), what could I say? >   > Is this really so difficult to understand, David? The EBU's definition of an LA is really based on the two alternative case, where there are only two choices. In such a case an LA is one that at least three in ten players would find. Another way of looking at the same thing is that a call is evident if you would expect more than seven players in ten to find it. Where there are more choices it is important to use commonsense in this interpretation. After all, if you are not careful, you will get to the case where there are four equally likely actions, and you will calim there are no LAs whatever, because all the actions are less than 30%. This is clearly not what is envisioned in the Law. > Let's say for the sake of argument that the offender's options > absent the UI would be: double (40%), 3C (20%), 4C (20%), 3H > (20%). We'll take it as read that the action taken by offender was > suggested over and above these alternatives by the UI and caused > damage. >   > What the Law book says is that the TD should see if the offender > has chosen "from among _logical_ alternative actions one which > could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > extraneous information" (L16A). The EBU defines  a logical > alternative as "a call or play which three or more in ten of > equivalent players could be expected to make in the particular > situation" (EBU TD Guide 16.6). Since all other conceivable options > fall well below the required standard of 30%, the offender had no > logical alternative to double and no adjustment of the score can be > considered. Now this is just wrong, in my view. 20% actions as against 40%? They are LAs. > What Alain and others seem to be saying is that there are two > alternative actions: double (40%) and "not-double" (60%). > "Not-double" now becomes a logical alternative and the score may be > adjusted as the offender could have chosen "not-double". > Unfortunately "not-double" is not an action, it is the sum of many > different actions, and it is clear from the Laws and the TD Guide > that "logical alternative" refers to _a call or play_ and not all > other conceivable calls or plays in their entirety, however much > you may wish it were otherwise. I have no idea what "Alain and others" are saying: I have not read their stuff carefully. However, *I* am not saying that it is double and not-double: *I* am saying that when four out of ten would find an action then an action that two out of ten would find should be considered a logical alternative 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 Wed Apr 18 21:26:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3IBQLr06040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:26:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3IBQ4t06022 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:26:05 +1000 (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 14pq5h-0001QI-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:25:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:16:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Deleting References: <001101c0c608$e87cb9a0$3df47ad5@pbncomputer> <3ADAB736.23BD8E43@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3ADAB736.23BD8E43@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 Burn wrote: >> >> >> Now, I do not expect my august opponents to lay down and die - indeed, I >> wish them very many more years of prosperity and contentment. But I wish >> I knew why they thought that if a man while claiming says "I will do X", >> where X is something that is meaningful in a bridge context and happens >> with some frequency at the bridge table, he should be treated more >> leniently than a man who actually does X without preamble. >> > >Because the Laws tell us that we can ! >The claim statement is not treated as an actual play, but as >a clarification of what is in declarer's mind. >It is the TD who performs the hypothetical play, and he is >the judge as to when the claim statement shall be deemed >"broken down". >If the TD deems the stated line has "broken down", then Laws >(in particular L70E) instruct him to follow all "normal >lines". So why should we change the stated line when the claim statement has not broken down? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 18 21:26:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3IBQQd06041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:26:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3IBQ7t06025 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:26:08 +1000 (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 14pq5k-0001Qk-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:25:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:22:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Deleting 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 f3IBQAt06029 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com writes > In a message dated 4/15/01 8:07:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > dburn@btinternet.com writes: >> But I wish >> I knew why they thought that if a man while claiming says "I >> will do X", >> where X is something that is meaningful in a bridge context and >> happens >> with some frequency at the bridge table, he should be treated >> more >> leniently than a man who actually does X without preamble. > +=+ From Grattan ~ >       Dear David, >       I find nothing in those laws which apply from the > point of claim > onwards to authorize the action you suggest to be > appropriate. I abide with > the laws as written. >       A careful reader of Laws 61A and 44C recognizes that a > revoke can only > occur in the course of play. Clear thinking recognizes that > from the point of > claim [68A] all play ceases and any purported play > subsequently is voided. > The claim and the statement of clarification are expressly > separate events > and the latter is to occur at once when there has been a > claim; it is a > proposal by claimer of the manner in which he may win the > tricks claimed. No > play is involved. Nor does the procedure in Law 70 involve > play; this Law > provides for adjudication - the adjudication of the claim by > the Director - > and refers only to actions of the players required by, and > under the > supervision of, the Director: Law 70 is addressed throughout > to the Director > and provides only for actions by him or under his control. > No scope exists in > this Law for an infraction by a player, nor can any revoke > that is not > established at the point of claim be established > subsequently and authority > for the award of any penalty is absent from this Law. Unfortunately the Law does not really say this: it is merely one reading of the Law, and David's reading is more logical. I can see the arguments about tricks involving turning little pieces of pasteboard over, but consider this: if you follow that definition of tricks then you could not score tricks "made" in claims. That is ridiculous, of course. In claims we have imaginary play made by the TD: everyone knows that. So why logically cannot the play be as the claim statement says? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 18 21:57:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3IBtGY06686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:55:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3IBt8t06679 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:55:09 +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 f3IBt0C05988 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:55:00 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f3IBswK23622 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:54:58 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:54:58 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 MAA04812 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:54:57 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA00954 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:54:56 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:54:56 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200104181154.MAA00954@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke; was Re: [BLML] Deleting X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Unfortunately the Law does not really say this: it is merely one > reading of the Law, and David's reading is more logical. > > I can see the arguments about tricks involving turning little pieces > of pasteboard over, but consider this: if you follow that definition of > tricks then you could not score tricks "made" in claims. > > That is ridiculous, of course. In claims we have imaginary play made > by the TD: everyone knows that. So why logically cannot the play be as > the claim statement says? I don't see why this is ridiculous. You do not score tricks "made" in claims; instead "The board is scored AS THOUGH the the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play" (L69A). So the laws clearly distinguish between tricks "won or lost in play" and tricks "claimed or conceded". Law 69 tells us that they are scored the same. It does not tell us that they are the same for other aspects of the laws (e.g. revokes). Again, in law 70 "the Director adjudicates the result of the board ...", the Director does not adjudicate the tricks won and lost. This seems to make clear that the outcome of claims/concessions is that play ceases and a result is obtained; subsequent tricks are not won and lost. The laws do not require the notion of "imaginary play made by the TD" --- and why "the TD", if the claim if not contested the imagination is in the minds of the players. 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 Apr 19 01:15:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3IFEl805791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:14:47 +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 f3IFEct05745 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:14:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ptf8-0009A5-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:14:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:11:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Deleting References: <001101c0c608$e87cb9a0$3df47ad5@pbncomputer> <3ADAB736.23BD8E43@village.uunet.be> 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 >Herman De Wael writes >>David Burn wrote: >>> >>> >>> Now, I do not expect my august opponents to lay down and die - indeed, I >>> wish them very many more years of prosperity and contentment. But I wish >>> I knew why they thought that if a man while claiming says "I will do X", >>> where X is something that is meaningful in a bridge context and happens >>> with some frequency at the bridge table, he should be treated more >>> leniently than a man who actually does X without preamble. >>> >> >>Because the Laws tell us that we can ! >>The claim statement is not treated as an actual play, but as >>a clarification of what is in declarer's mind. >>It is the TD who performs the hypothetical play, and he is >>the judge as to when the claim statement shall be deemed >>"broken down". >>If the TD deems the stated line has "broken down", then Laws >>(in particular L70E) instruct him to follow all "normal >>lines". > > So why should we change the stated line when the claim statement has >not broken down? > Ahem! Revokes are irrational - we've discussed this many times. However if in the claim statement he says he'll revoke and then immediately spots he wouldn't have revoked I *will* not hold him to the revoke, simply because he has corrected an infraction, rather than found a better line. Law 72B2 perhaps. -- 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 Apr 19 02:05:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3IG4xo13757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 02:04:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3IG4pt13746 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 02:04:52 +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 LAA05759 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:07:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010418110333.007bfe40@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:03:33 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke; was Re: [BLML] Deleting In-Reply-To: <200104181154.MAA00954@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 12:54 PM 4/18/2001 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >You do not score tricks "made" in claims; instead "The board is scored >AS THOUGH the the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in >play" (L69A). OK, then, back to my earlier case no-one has replied to. West has revoked in diamonds. His revoke has already become established. He has not won a trick with a card he could have used on the revoke trick. Declarer now claims with the lead in dummy. S A D 5 S 2 D 7 low clubs low clubs If there are no 'real tricks' after a claim, then West cannot win a trick with his diamond. Ergo, declarer gets no two-trick penalty. Would you argue that this is 'equitable'? It seems obvious to me that the TD 'imagines' how the play will go from here, that that play clearly involves West winning a diamond trick, and that a two-trick penalty follows. But, then again, it was obvious to me that if declarer says he's going to lead from dummy when he's actually in his hand, and that lead would have benefitted the defenders, we should score the hand under that assumption. >So the laws clearly distinguish between tricks "won or lost in play" and >tricks "claimed or conceded". Law 69 tells us that they are scored the >same. It does not tell us that they are the same for other aspects of >the laws (e.g. revokes). Nor, indeed, does it say the opposite. In fact, what it says is that tricks from a claim are treated 'as if' they had been won in play. To read that as meaning that they are to be treated differently than tricks won in play, without any clarification elsewhere in the laws, seems perverse. >Again, in law 70 "the Director adjudicates the result of the board ...", >the Director does not adjudicate the tricks won and lost. Then you're not giving a two-trick revoke penalty in my example above? >This seems to make clear that the outcome of claims/concessions is that >play ceases and a result is obtained; subsequent tricks are not won and >lost. The laws do not require the notion of "imaginary play made by >the TD" --- and why "the TD", if the claim if not contested the >imagination is in the minds of the players. OK, I give up. I understand how I am to figure out how many tricks to award on a disputed claim if I use the "imaginary play" system. That's what I always thought I was supposed to do, and that's how all disputed claims before this one have been discussed on this list. Now you tell me I'm not supposed to do that. OK, how do I figure out what non-trick "result" to give? Please forgive me if I sound harsh--this thread is starting to frustrate me excessively. I'm trying to get a really fundamental question of proceedure answered, and the only people answering it are the ones who agree with me already. I'll try one last time, and then maybe I'll give up: I make a claim statement. It is disputed. The TD sees that I will not, in fact, make the number of tricks I claimed if my claim statement is executed. Now what do I do? If you tell me the answer is obvious, please give me the text of the laws that shows this. a) Ignore the claim statement, and look for the least favorable "normal" line of play. But if the original claim statement stated an "abnormal" line of play, like crashing honors or destroying transportation, then this is highly unfair to defenders! b) Follow the claim statement until it breaks down, and then look for the least favorable normal line from there on in. OK, now two problems: 1) Are tricks taken during this method "real tricks" for the purpose of establishing revokes, taking tricks for revoke penalty evaluation, etc? If not, then you get what I regard as a horribly inequitable result in the case I gave above. 2) When does the line "break down"? When it results in an illegal play? But this gives an unfair result in the "lead from the wrong hand" case. When declarer _could have_ seen it was irrational to follow it? But this means that my 'crashing honors' claim, or a transportation-blocking claim, must be negated. When the TD thinks declarer _probably would have_ seen that it was irrational? This is what I have always assumed, but now it seems that Grattan, et al, are telling me that this is obviously wrong, because it means that if declarer probably wouldn't have seen the flaw in his line until after he revoked or played from the wrong hand, then we have to award tricks "as if" he had revoked or led from the wrong hand, and Grattan et al say that this is obviously wrong. I don't get it. I would think that I am just thick-headed, but both Davids, Herman, and I all seem to think that it goes something like this, and if the four of us all agree on something I find it hard to believe that it is _obviously_ absurd or flawed. >Robin Begging for help, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 02:20:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3IGKSD15221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 02:20:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r12.mx.aol.com (imo-r12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3IGKKt15182 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 02:20:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id f.b0.135bdced (4522); Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:19:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:19:49 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke; was Re: [BLML] Deleting To: rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b0.135bdced.280f18a5_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_b0.135bdced.280f18a5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/18/01 7:58:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk writes: > You do not score tricks "made" in claims; instead "The board is scored > AS THOUGH the the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in > ------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- +=+ from Grattan: When we wrote the laws we insulated the adjudication of claim from 'play'. From the point of claim the Director is dealing solely with the claim: with the Director conducting the procedure and the hands faced no irregularity can exist and should one be proposed in the notional play rectification takes place without penalty - there is no provision in the relevant law for penalizing a player. To make an error in the statement of clarification is not an infraction. [Were it otherwise the attempt to revoke would in any case be subject to 64B3, but this is not relevant. The outcome of a claim is an adjudication by the Director; it is not a result of play.] I recognize that the difficulty some have in seeing this arises because the law is expressed positively as to what happens, does not contain negative statements as to what is not to happen, and in the style Kaplan preferred excludes what is not expressly provided by law. This principle was reconfirmed by the WBF Laws Committee on 24th August 1998; although numbers of those engaged in the game feel that what is not intended should be explicitly denied in the Laws, and although my aim in the next General Review of the Laws is to persuade drafting sub-committee colleagues that we should act fundamentally to clarify the intentions of the Laws (and not abide with the Kaplanesque addiction to inferential understandings), for the moment we have the Law in the Kaplan style: we must read and understand it accordingly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --part1_b0.135bdced.280f18a5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/18/01 7:58:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk writes:


You do not score tricks "made" in claims; instead "The board is scored
AS THOUGH the the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in
play" (L69A).

-------------------------  \x/  -----------------------   
+=+ from Grattan:
      When we wrote the laws we insulated the
adjudication of claim from 'play'. From the point
of claim the Director is dealing solely with the
claim: with the Director conducting the procedure
and the hands faced no irregularity can exist and
should one be proposed in the notional play
rectification takes place without penalty - there is
no provision in the relevant law for penalizing a
player. To make an error in the statement of
clarification is not an infraction. [Were it
otherwise the attempt to revoke would in any
case be subject to 64B3, but this is not relevant.
The outcome of a claim is an adjudication by the
Director; it is not a result of play.]
    I recognize that the difficulty some have in
seeing this arises because the law is expressed
positively as to what happens, does not contain
negative statements as to what is not to happen,
and in the style Kaplan preferred excludes what
is not expressly provided by law. This principle
was reconfirmed by the WBF Laws Committee
on 24th August 1998; although numbers of those
engaged in the game feel that what is not
intended should be explicitly denied in the Laws,
and although my aim in the next General Review
of the Laws is to persuade drafting sub-committee
colleagues that we should act fundamentally to
clarify the intentions of the Laws (and not abide
with the Kaplanesque addiction to inferential
understandings), for the moment we have the
Law in the Kaplan style: we must read and
understand it accordingly.      ~ Grattan ~    +=+
--part1_b0.135bdced.280f18a5_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 Apr 19 02:58:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3IGwMO29495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 02:58:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3IGwEt29450 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 02:58:15 +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 f3IGw6C13373; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:58:07 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f3IGw5Z02203; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:58:05 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:58:05 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 RAA05157; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:58:03 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA01677; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:58:02 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:58:02 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200104181658.RAA01677@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, cfgcs@eiu.edu Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke; was Re: [BLML] Deleting X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: > Please forgive me if I sound harsh--this thread is starting to > frustrate me excessively. I'm trying to get a really fundamental > question of proceedure answered, and the only people answering it are > the ones who agree with me already. I'll try one last time, and then > maybe I'll give up: I don't care if you sound harsh but I've no idea why you want to attach your harshness in response to my posting which only suggested it was perhaps "not ridiculous" to distinguish tricks won and lost in play from tricks claimed or conceded. I still think the laws make that distinction. > I make a claim statement. It is disputed. The TD sees that > I will not, in fact, make the number of tricks I claimed if my claim > statement is executed. Now what do I do? If you tell me the answer > is obvious, please give me the text of the laws that shows this. I did not say how we should rule on claims. I think we rule as we have ever done: the only new question in this thread is whether we should penalise the claimer when his statement includes illegal plays. I haven't posted before on this thread, but my view is that if the claimer statement includes illegal plays (such as revokes, or cashing 4 club tricks with AK opposite QJxx and no entry) then we consider the statement to have "broken down" at that point, and award the remaining tricks on the basis of careless but not irrational play. I think the question of how to handle "won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick" when there has been a concession by the non-revoking side, is a question not adequately covered in the laws. > OK, then, back to my earlier case no-one has replied to. West > has revoked in diamonds. His revoke has already become established. He > has not won a trick with a card he could have used on the revoke trick. > Declarer now claims with the lead in dummy. > > S A > D 5 > > S 2 > D 7 low clubs > > low clubs > > If there are no 'real tricks' after a claim, then West cannot > win a trick with his diamond. Ergo, declarer gets no two-trick penalty. > Would you argue that this is 'equitable'? In this case, I have no problem applying the revoke penalty AS IF D7 won a trick. But I don't think it is what the laws say. But what if the position (in no trumps) were: S 2 H 2 D 2 C 2 S A H A D AKQ7 C AK S 3 H 3 D 3 C 3 Declarer concedes the rest after West has revoked in diamonds. How do we decide if one of the last four tricks would be won in diamonds? Do we look to see if D3 was closest to declarer's thumb when he conceded? (Does East have to buy a beer?) As far as I can tell, the laws do not say how to apply 63A2 here. The recent WBFLC interpretation that in revoke/claim positions we rule against the revoker (resolving doubtful point against the revoker) suggests that West suffers the two trick penalty. 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 Apr 19 11:24:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J1MBs14181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:22:11 +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-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 f3J1Lvt14165 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:21:58 +1000 (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 14q38q-000MDg-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 02:21:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:47:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <3AD41B3D.69AE8DF6@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AD41B3D.69AE8DF6@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: >> >> >> Personally, if the Laws do not say otherwise, it seems logical to me >> to do what we always do: believe the claim statement as far as possible. >> Why ever not? >> > >ehm - strange claim anyone ? > >We believe the claim statement only up to the point where it >breaks down. That is exactly what I am saying! >Declarer is not going to revoke, not even when he says he >will. Of course he is! He has claimed part way through a trick, and it is that trick he is revoking on! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 11:24:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J1MEh14183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:22:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3J1Lvt14164 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:21:58 +1000 (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 14q38q-000MDf-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 02:21:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:46:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <3.0.32.20010412102825.0140bd90@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010412102825.0140bd90@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >Re the discussion on revoke etc., during a claim. Let me try once. Firstly >I agree completely with the statments made by Grattan re legality, >proposals, tricks, establishment of revokes, etc. > >BUT, this is not about revokes at all. It is about a situation clearly and >completely handled by LAW 70 A CLAIM that has been contested by the >opponents. So here goes. > >Why contested? Could be because of impossible plays, leads from the wrong >hand, miscounting of cards (including trumps usually), revoke as part of >claim, etc. What-have-you. But for sure because the opponents don't think >claimer can get what he wants by following his statement(s). >The TD follows the Law in 70B. If trumps not involved or new line stated, >or >unstated, he then goes back to A and does what it says. Since there is no >further play (see Law68D) from the point of claim there is no play to >permit, >adjust, forbid, insist upon, etc. The TD decides whether the contesting of >the claim was valid, whether the claim itself was valid, and then awards >tricks giving any doubtful ones to the non-claimant. PERIOD! >The danger in this discussion is that there creeps in the thought that there >can be play after a claim (in this case directed by the Director). >Specifically the business about stating a line of play that includes a >revoke >makes the claim invalid. Does anyone wish to say that since he was >proposing >a revoke that we are now going to apply the Laws on revokes to something >that >is Law68D "....All play subsequent to a claim or concession SHALL BE VOIDED >by the Director....." >Seems clear to me, in my simple mind. Certainly this is all about L70. Declarer made a claim by putting his cards down and making a claim statement. Since the number of tricks he claimed and the number of tricks that his claim statement would have gained if he had played that way were different the opponents correctly called the Director. Now *of course* there is no further play by turning bits of pasteboard over. What happens, as I am sure we all know, is that the Director applies L70 and comes to a conclusion as to how many tricks would have been made, and the board is scored on that ruling. In effect he decides how the play would have gone, with the benefit of doubt going to the non-claimers. To do this he considers [a] the claim statement [b] anything unusual about the hand [c] anything forgotten by claimer [d] what he thinks declarer would do that is normal That is what the Law says. It does not say all the plays must be legal - perhaps it should, perhaps it will in a future Law book, but it does not say it. Thus the Director has to allow illegal plays in his determination or else he has not followed L70A: it is not "as equitably as possible" to make declarer follow a line more successful than his claim statement unless the TD believes that declarer would follow such a line. In the case at issue if you believe that declarer might have revoked if he had played the hand out [and a claim statement that says he would revoke is strong evidence that he might have] then you have failed to follow L70A if you do not determine the line of play to include a 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 Thu Apr 19 11:24:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J1MDW14182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:22:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3J1M1t14171 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:22:02 +1000 (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 14q38r-000MDd-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 02:21:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:27:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> <3AD41813.84122FE@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AD41813.84122FE@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >Eric Landau wrote: >> Or does it depend on "the class of player involved"? >Of course it does. But no "class of player" actually >revokes. I do! Don't I belong to a class of player? I am serious: most classes of player revoke! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 11:24:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J1M8Y14180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:22:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3J1Lvt14163 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:21:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14q38p-000MDe-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 02:21:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:32:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010411112334.007fb7e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3AD58281.9B89E585@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AD58281.9B89E585@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 >We should be dealing with this claim as if there has been no >claim statement, but with the added knowledge of what >claimer knows about the hand. Silly me. And I thought we should be applying the Laws. No matter, next time I claim, and Herman is the Director, at least I know my claim statement will be ignored. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 17:58:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J7vUS10678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:57:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f47.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3J7vOt10674 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:57:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:57:17 -0700 Received: from 172.148.239.132 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:57:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.148.239.132] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:57:17 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2001 07:57:17.0562 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A8BEDA0:01C0C8A6] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Herman De Wael writes > >We should be dealing with **this** > >claim as if there has been no > >claim statement, but with the added knowledge of what > >claimer knows about the hand. > > Silly me. And I thought we should be applying the Laws. No matter, >next time I claim, and Herman is the Director, at least I know my claim >statement will be ignored. Emphasis mine. Your claims may be treated differently. Herman believes, or at least appears to, as do I, that a claim statement breaks down at a revoke. -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 Apr 19 18:27:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J8R4W16693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:27:04 +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 f3J8Qvt16650 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:26:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-170.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.170]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3J8Qpn13513 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:26:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADD98D3.D76984B3@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:38:27 +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] Deleting References: <001101c0c608$e87cb9a0$3df47ad5@pbncomputer> <3ADAB736.23BD8E43@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: > > >> > > > >Because the Laws tell us that we can ! > >The claim statement is not treated as an actual play, but as > >a clarification of what is in declarer's mind. > >It is the TD who performs the hypothetical play, and he is > >the judge as to when the claim statement shall be deemed > >"broken down". > >If the TD deems the stated line has "broken down", then Laws > >(in particular L70E) instruct him to follow all "normal > >lines". > > So why should we change the stated line when the claim statement has > not broken down? > But that is exactly what the TD needs to determine! When the "stated line" has broken down. IMHO, this stated line has broken down when it has become sufficiently clear to TD that the player would not fail to see that it was a heart, not a diamond that was led. IIRC, the player, unaided, noticed after a brief moment that it was a heart. Why then should we have any doubt that the player would have noticed it at the same time had he nod claimed ? This case has two aspects : 1) Should the TD follow the stated line blindly to its conclusion or should he use judgment (with doubt against claimer) to determine when the stated line breaks down ? I most emphatically state that the TD should judge and not be blind. 2) When does the stated line break down in this actual case ? I am less certain that I have all the facts here, but I believe it does very early on. We really don't need to discuss number 2). It's a question of facts and of severity of judgment. But some people called David seem to be against me on 1). They really should not. As long as you guys are using judgment, that's all right, but you seem to be using principles. And those principles are 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 Apr 19 18:27:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J8RLc16780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:27:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3J8RCt16739 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:27:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-170.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.170]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3J8Qwn13561 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:27:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADD993C.33462020@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:40:12 +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] L16C after a non-established revoke References: <3.0.6.32.20010418123015.00827150@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 09:03 17/04/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > >Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> A local teams tournament with some (very) good teams. > >> NS below are a Belgian National pair - East plays in the > >> Belgian second division. > > AG : doesn't make him a good player, huh ? > About like you Alain. Far better than I. (I play in the fourth division) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 18:28:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J8SSv17169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:28:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3J8SFt17098 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:28:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-170.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.170]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3J8S9n14125 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:28:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADD98D3.D76984B3@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:38:27 +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] Deleting References: <001101c0c608$e87cb9a0$3df47ad5@pbncomputer> <3ADAB736.23BD8E43@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: > > >> > > > >Because the Laws tell us that we can ! > >The claim statement is not treated as an actual play, but as > >a clarification of what is in declarer's mind. > >It is the TD who performs the hypothetical play, and he is > >the judge as to when the claim statement shall be deemed > >"broken down". > >If the TD deems the stated line has "broken down", then Laws > >(in particular L70E) instruct him to follow all "normal > >lines". > > So why should we change the stated line when the claim statement has > not broken down? > But that is exactly what the TD needs to determine! When the "stated line" has broken down. IMHO, this stated line has broken down when it has become sufficiently clear to TD that the player would not fail to see that it was a heart, not a diamond that was led. IIRC, the player, unaided, noticed after a brief moment that it was a heart. Why then should we have any doubt that the player would have noticed it at the same time had he nod claimed ? This case has two aspects : 1) Should the TD follow the stated line blindly to its conclusion or should he use judgment (with doubt against claimer) to determine when the stated line breaks down ? I most emphatically state that the TD should judge and not be blind. 2) When does the stated line break down in this actual case ? I am less certain that I have all the facts here, but I believe it does very early on. We really don't need to discuss number 2). It's a question of facts and of severity of judgment. But some people called David seem to be against me on 1). They really should not. As long as you guys are using judgment, that's all right, but you seem to be using principles. And those principles are 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 Apr 19 18:28:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J8SeQ17210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:28:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3J8SLt17134 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:28:22 +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 14q9nT-000Bk2-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:28:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 03:19:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke; was Re: [BLML] Deleting References: <200104181154.MAA00954@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200104181154.MAA00954@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 >> Unfortunately the Law does not really say this: it is merely one >> reading of the Law, and David's reading is more logical. >> >> I can see the arguments about tricks involving turning little pieces >> of pasteboard over, but consider this: if you follow that definition of >> tricks then you could not score tricks "made" in claims. >> >> That is ridiculous, of course. In claims we have imaginary play made >> by the TD: everyone knows that. So why logically cannot the play be as >> the claim statement says? > >I don't see why this is ridiculous. > >You do not score tricks "made" in claims; instead "The board is scored >AS THOUGH the the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in >play" (L69A). > >So the laws clearly distinguish between tricks "won or lost in play" and >tricks "claimed or conceded". Law 69 tells us that they are scored the >same. It does not tell us that they are the same for other aspects of >the laws (e.g. revokes). > >Again, in law 70 "the Director adjudicates the result of the board ...", >the Director does not adjudicate the tricks won and lost. > >This seems to make clear that the outcome of claims/concessions is that >play ceases and a result is obtained; subsequent tricks are not won and >lost. The laws do not require the notion of "imaginary play made by >the TD" --- and why "the TD", if the claim if not contested the >imagination is in the minds of the players. The strange thing about your reply is that it seems to support my position yet you say it is the exact opposite! OK, you do not like the term imaginary play: fine. But adjudicating the result of the board is the same thing, and therefore such adjudication can include the Director's view if he believes that a player would have done what he said he would have done. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 18:28:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J8Se617211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:28:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3J8SJt17118 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:28:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-170.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.170]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3J8SEn14163 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:28:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADD993C.33462020@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:40:12 +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] L16C after a non-established revoke References: <3.0.6.32.20010418123015.00827150@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 09:03 17/04/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > >Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> A local teams tournament with some (very) good teams. > >> NS below are a Belgian National pair - East plays in the > >> Belgian second division. > > AG : doesn't make him a good player, huh ? > About like you Alain. Far better than I. (I play in the fourth division) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 18:29:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J8SjQ17229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:28:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3J8SOt17156 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:28:25 +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 14q9nX-0008og-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:28:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 03:21:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke; was Re: [BLML] Deleting 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 f3J8SRt17172 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com writes > In a message dated 4/18/01 7:58:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk writes: > >> You do not score tricks "made" in claims; instead "The board is >> scored >> AS THOUGH the the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or >> lost in >> play" (L69A). > > -------------------------  \x/  -----------------------    > +=+ from Grattan: >       When we wrote the laws we insulated the > adjudication of claim from 'play'. From the point > of claim the Director is dealing solely with the > claim: with the Director conducting the procedure > and the hands faced no irregularity can exist and > should one be proposed in the notional play > rectification takes place without penalty - there is > no provision in the relevant law for penalizing a > player. There does not need to be a specific provision. The wording of L70A is clear enough and we are merely following it. Ok, some of us are, the rest are giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimer in defiance of L70A. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 18:29:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J8SjY17231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:28:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3J8SJt17123 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:28:20 +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 14q9nT-000Bk1-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:28:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 03:15:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104101410.KAA29252@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002701c0c2a1$bd1afe80$1c10f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: <002701c0c2a1$bd1afe80$1c10f7a5@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 may be so in England or in very high level play. In a >typical club game or sectional here is would be most unusual for >dummy NOT to protect. Dummy almost always performs his functions >rather than goes gallivanting off in search of fuel to poison >his intellect. > >This may be related to our zonal option of allowing "No spades >partner" to defenders as well. Players form the habit of always >asking, and follow this as dummy as well. That may very well be true. When defenders were allowed to warn each other about revokes, dummies used to as well: when it was changed here and defenders were no longer permitted to do so, dummies seemed generally to stop doing so as well. >As to the case, it is so obvious that declarer has all three >tricks, and would be awarded them by a sane director in the >absence of any claim statement, that it seems to strain at gnats >to penalise him for claiming for a revoke that has not occured >yet and were it to occur would almost certainly not become >established. It's all very well to make comments like this. I do dislike the method of being rude to bolster a weak argument. Thankyou for your estimate of my abilities as a director. Unfortunately for me, I am more interested in [a] following the rules of the game and [b] attempting to bring justice to sides that do not cause problems than to worry about other people's opinions of my rulings. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 19:17:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J9Gqx03965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:16:52 +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 f3J9Gjt03936 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:16:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.93.146] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14qAYL-0006O7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:16:41 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01c0c8b1$58fcc120$925d073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20010418123015.00827150@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3ADD993C.33462020@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] L16C after a non-established revoke Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:15:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: > About like you Alain. > Far better than I. > (I play in the fourth division) One wonders what was actually made of this ruling at the time. As Roger has correctly pointed out, ducking the king of clubs allows the contract to make, while winning it and playing a heart defeats the contract. Did East really continue to insist that he ought to be allowed to duck the king of clubs because of AI available to him? Did North really continue to insist that East ought to win it, despite the fact that a heart play would then be totally obvious? Did the director and the appeals committee really not work out the end position? Did this really happen in the Belgium whose team reached the knock-out stages of the last Olympiad? It is all very mysterious, and I suspect Herman is having some joke with us. 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 Apr 19 19:32:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J9TRZ06056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:29:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3J9TLt06052 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:29:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.93.146] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14qAkX-0007QV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:29:17 +0100 Message-ID: <003001c0c8b3$1bdc56a0$925d073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:28:33 +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 Todd wrote: > Herman believes, or at least appears to, as do I, that a claim statement > breaks down at a revoke. As, apparently, do Grattan and Kojak. But why should a claim statement break down at a point where it can still be followed? If a claim statement includes something that it is impossible for declarer to do, then by all means treat it as though it has broken down (and you lily-livered milksops can then award "normal" numbers of tricks to declarer, while I will give him only legally unavoidable tricks). But it is not impossible for declarer to revoke, or to lead from the wrong hand - and if he claims that he will do any of these things, then let the defenders derive the benefit that they would have derived had he actually done them. Now, that is equitable, and anything else is not. To justify it, we use Law 70A (as DWS points out). But (as Grattan says) there may be no legal justification for applying to the adjudication of a claim the Laws that would apply to actual play, for there is no actual play. An impasse appears to have been reached, and I am not sure that it can be resolved without clarification of or changes to Law. We have a pronouncement from the Secretary of the WBF Laws Commission as to what the Law actually is, and his opinion is endorsed by the WBF Chief Tournament Director. That ought to be enough. 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 Apr 19 19:32:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3J9Wp706068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:32:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3J9Wit06064 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:32:45 +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 f3J9WaC26154 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:32:37 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f3J9Wa629268 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:32:36 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:32:35 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 KAA07148 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:32:34 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA02586 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:32:33 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:32:33 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200104190932.KAA02586@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke; was Re: [BLML] Deleting X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David: > > The strange thing about your reply is that it seems to support my > position yet you say it is the exact opposite! > I'm glad I'm not really bothered by this thread. Everyone is getting very excited. I just made a small comment on a minor point of another post and Grant starts thinks I've disagreed with him while David thinks I've agreed with him (David) without meaning to. My actual position is in my post in reply to Grant. David said that tricks in a claim/concession must be the same as tricks won/lost in play because otherwise we could not get the score for tricks in a claim/concession and that would be ridiculous. I said that we get the score for tricks in a claim/concession via L69A, and the use of the phrase "as though" is L69A suggests it is not ridiculous to say tricks in a claim/concession may not be the same as tricks won/lost in play. I'm surprised that people read so much into this. Of itself, this opinion does not say that you can or can not revoke with tricks in a claim/concession. To spell it out: I guess David's post that I was originally replying to was arguing that * tricks in a claim/concession are the same as tricks won/lost in play; * you can revoke on trick won/lost in play; * therefore you can revoke on tricks in a claim/concession. I claim there is a flaw in that argument, in that the initial premis is not supported by L69A. Just because there is a flaw in the argument, I do not necessarily disagree with the conclusion. As I said, if I cared more, I might get more excited. 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 Apr 19 20:50:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JAnr306151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:49:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JAnbt06123 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:49:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-226.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.226]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3JAnVq01577 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:49:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADEA80F.ECCEAB51@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:55:43 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> <3AD41813.84122FE@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael writes > >Eric Landau wrote: > > >> Or does it depend on "the class of player involved"? > > >Of course it does. But no "class of player" actually > >revokes. > > I do! Don't I belong to a class of player? > > I am serious: most classes of player revoke! > Come on David, you know what I mean, All classes of players revoke. But no class of player is deemed to revoke within a claim. So while it of course depends in theory on the class of player, it does not in practice. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 20:50:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JAo0p06154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:50:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JAnet06127 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:49:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-226.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.226]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3JAnaq01615 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:49:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADEAA61.F079AC54@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:05:37 +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] claiming a revoke References: <3AD41B3D.69AE8DF6@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: > > > > >We believe the claim statement only up to the point where it > >breaks down. > > That is exactly what I am saying! > Well, and doesn't it break down when declarer notices that a heart has been led ? OK, now we may (agin) disagree as to when this is going to happen, but I do believe in real life he has noticed it himself, immediately after uttering his unfortunate sentence. Really David, you despair me when you pretend you do not understand what I am saying. Please stop it. > >Declarer is not going to revoke, not even when he says he > >will. > > Of course he is! He has claimed part way through a trick, and it is > that trick he is revoking on! > Well, he has claimed, hasn't he ? So play stops, doesn't it ? And he cannot revoke in actual play, can he ? So the TD should now determine whether or not he shall revoke in "hypothetical" play. If you really believe he will revoke, please tell me so. In that case I agree that you award 2 tricks to opponents. But I am in no doubt that this declarer shall not revoke, so please don't criticise me for not giving those penalty tricks. Really David, I can't believe you cannot answer this simple question: "Do you believe that if he plays it out, this declarer might revoke?". If you can truthfully answer YES to that question, then by all means rule against him. But don't do so under some misguided Burnian principle. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 20:50:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JAo3d06158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:50:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JAnit06138 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:49:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-226.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.226]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3JAneq01646 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:49:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADEAC39.D87EC703@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:13:29 +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] claiming a revoke 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: > > > Herman believes, or at least appears to, as do I, that a claim statement > breaks down at a revoke. > Herman believes that a claim statement breaks down when the claimer is deemed to notice that he is going to revoke. I believe that in this particular case, that moment is even before playing from dummy, but I have no quarrels with anyone who believes it is at some later moment. As long as we are agreeing on the principle, I don't care about the actual ruling. After all, I was not there - so how could I ever try to determine what went on in this claimer's mind. But statements such as "he shall revoke because he said so" are simply untrue. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 20:50:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JAo4D06161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:50:04 +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-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 f3JAnkt06142 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:49:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-226.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.226]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3JAngq01659 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:49:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADEAFCF.877AB6B1@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:28:47 +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] claiming a revoke; was Re: [BLML] Deleting References: <200104181658.RAA01677@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > But what if the position (in no trumps) were: > > S 2 > H 2 > D 2 > C 2 > S A > H A > D AKQ7 > C AK > S 3 > H 3 > D 3 > C 3 > > Declarer concedes the rest after West has revoked in diamonds. > > How do we decide if one of the last four tricks would be won in diamonds? > Do we look to see if D3 was closest to declarer's thumb when he conceded? > (Does East have to buy a beer?) > As far as I can tell, the laws do not say how to apply 63A2 here. > > The recent WBFLC interpretation that in revoke/claim positions we rule > against the revoker (resolving doubtful point against the revoker) > suggests that West suffers the two trick penalty. > > Robin > Indeed it does. I would in fact award two tricks to each side. I believe it is fair. And of course it is only correct with the application of the Lille "change of the Laws". Before Lille, this would be 4 tricks to defenders. PS : please tell me how you end up with 8 low cards in both hands ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 20:50:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JAnti06152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:49:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JAnct06124 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:49:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-226.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.226]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3JAnYq01603 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:49:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADEA900.CF47A70@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:59:44 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104091957.MAA12112@mailhub.irvine.com> <008001c0c162$a399df20$6ac501d5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010410094602.00b2b410@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010411112334.007fb7e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3AD58281.9B89E585@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael writes > > >We should be dealing with this claim as if there has been no > >claim statement, but with the added knowledge of what > >claimer knows about the hand. > > Silly me. And I thought we should be applying the Laws. No matter, > next time I claim, and Herman is the Director, at least I know my claim > statement will be ignored. > David, you are being silly. Did I say we ignore the claim statement ? No I did not. And we don't. But just as with any claim statement that tells of a line that breaks down, we ignore the statement after it breaks down. Just applying the Laws, indeed. Now you and I may disagree as to point in time when this particular stated line has already broken down, but please don't insult me by saying that I am not following the Laws. I believe that this player shall notice that a heart was led before playing from dummy. Ergo, his stated line has broken down and we should follow all "normal" lines, using the statement as evidence that this player knows how the cards lie. Simple really. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 20:51:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JAp0V06213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:51:00 +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-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 f3JAoat06179 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:50:37 +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 14qC17-0003sO-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:50:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:12:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a 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 Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> A claim is an attempt to shorten play by saying what would have >> happened if play had continued. If you believe that declarer would >> revoke and the revoke would be established if play had continued, how >> can it be fair to give declarer the benefit of no revoke? > >I don't think it can. What if I believe that, had play continued, the >declarer would not actually establish a revoke despite his statement? I >assume it would be equally unfair to assume a revoke and that I should >base my ruling on the least effective non-revoke line. There are many >things that would lead me to rule this way. One of the problems on this list is that it is far easier to consider cases but they do not always make the point. In some ways it might be better to just argue theory without examples but it would be far more boring - and we would still miss things that are brought out by examples. In this case the interest to me is whether the claim can be adjudged legally including an established revoke. If we decide that it can then there is no doubt that the TD has to make a determination, but that does not interest me much. It then just becomes a standard judgement ruling "Get the facts - consider - consult - rule". Certainly the TD would have to decide the likelihood [a] of the revoke actually happening and [b] of it being established in his determination. If he considers it is [say] a 40% chance of it happening and being established then I think that is covered by L70A and his determination should include an established revoke. >1. An immediate correction on realising a heart had been led. > >2. Declarer having exposed his hand when making the claim statement if >dummy was present with his rights intact. > >3. Dummy, with rights intact, convincing me that he knew declarer had the >HQ (a heart) and was paying attention. > >4. If the declarer (expecting a diamond lead), claimed before, or at >approximately the same time as the actual heart lead with "I can ruff a >diamond..." > >5. The play of the heart king by RHO (admittedly this wouldn't help him >win all the tricks). All reasonable, but not affecting the legal question. -------- Perhaps at this stage I should point out something that may have confused me and possibly others, but was clarified to my by David Burn. I have seen this query from several sources - at least six. Unfortunately they are not consistent. Some [including I think the earliest] make it clear that the HK is not out ["E/W have small red cards"]. At least one makes it clear that the HK *is* out. The attempt at correction by declarer is not mentioned in some of the cases. Now, if people want to argue the determination, fine. It is complicated by these two things, which might lead to different determinations. But the interest in my view is not the determination but what legally can be decided. -------- Interestingly enough Todd argues that my arguments are wrong, in effect by saying I have not argued a case therefore I must be wrong. While his logic is flawed it is interesting that most of the arguments the other way [including Todd's and Grattan's] are much the same type of argument - proof by assertion as Todd puts it. It is difficult to be certain of the path here. Perhaps I am more swayed than some of the people on this list because I am a practising TD. After ruling a few hundred claims on the basis of following the claim statement until it breaks down, and then taking the most reasonable line giving the benefit of doubt to non-claimer, it is difficult to see why we should not do that here. A claim statement does not break down until it cannot be followed, despite some assertions that say it breaks down when the line becomes illegal - that is just not true. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 20:51:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JAp1T06214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:51:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JAoat06180 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:50:37 +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 14qC17-0003sX-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:50:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:21:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Deleting References: <001101c0c608$e87cb9a0$3df47ad5@pbncomputer> <3ADAB736.23BD8E43@village.uunet.be> <3ADD98D3.D76984B3@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3ADD98D3.D76984B3@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: >> >> >> >> > >> >Because the Laws tell us that we can ! >> >The claim statement is not treated as an actual play, but as >> >a clarification of what is in declarer's mind. >> >It is the TD who performs the hypothetical play, and he is >> >the judge as to when the claim statement shall be deemed >> >"broken down". >> >If the TD deems the stated line has "broken down", then Laws >> >(in particular L70E) instruct him to follow all "normal >> >lines". >> >> So why should we change the stated line when the claim statement has >> not broken down? >> > >But that is exactly what the TD needs to determine! When the >"stated line" has broken down. > >IMHO, this stated line has broken down when it has become >sufficiently clear to TD that the player would not fail to >see that it was a heart, not a diamond that was led. >IIRC, the player, unaided, noticed after a brief moment that >it was a heart. I have seen this problem cited in roughly six places. Not all mention a correction. The interest to me lies in the legality of allowing a revoke in the ruling, assuming the determination is that the player was reasonably likely to revoke and establish if he played it out. Of course, if the TD's determination is otherwise, we rule otherwise, and the example fails to have any further interest. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 20:51:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JAp3D06215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:51:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JAoct06182 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:50:39 +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 14qC17-0003sV-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:50:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:17:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <26.13d680cd.2805dd48@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <26.13d680cd.2805dd48@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f3JAogt06187 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk AlanLeBendig@aol.com writes > In a message dated 4/10/01 10:50:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Schoderb@aol.com writes: > > >> By the way, because Kojak deletes 99% of blml emails I am >> unsure, but >> think I got a whiff that someone had said that a revoke is not >> an >> illegality. >> If so, the writer did not have a grasp of the law; a revoke is a >> violation >> of >> law, and actions that violate the law are illegal. > > > I wrote that it was not "illegal" to revoke.  And I specifically > used the > quotation marks for what I thought was a very good reason!  Of > course I know > it is not legal to revoke - but someone had put forth that this was > not a > valid claim because it contained a statement that the declarer was > about to > revoke and we would not allow the claim BECAUSE it is illegal to > revoke.  I > totally disagree.  We would never permit a claim that entailed > leading from > the wrong hand because doing so is clearly prohibited. This is a problem: why not? If you would not allow such a claim [assume for argument that it is a position where the non-claimers would clearly accept the LOOT because it is to their benefit] then it is difficult to see why the logic for revokes is different. Me, I follow L70A, and until anyone can show me why illegal plays that benefit the non-claimers and are part of the claim statement are not included, I shall allow them to be included. It has been pointed out that perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, and a flawed claim statement, not a flawed claim. But of course, that is part of our normal determination. The interest in this query depends on a determination that declarer was going to revoke and establish it if he had not claimed - the ruling losses interest otherwise. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 20:51:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JAp9L06216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:51:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JAoZt06178 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:50:37 +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 14qC17-0003sL-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:50:31 +0100 Message-ID: <9gmxYDA5Xr36Ew8h@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:55:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a 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 >>From: David Stevenson >>Todd Zimnoch writes >> >You should be more explicit. I am resolving doubt against claimer. I >>doubt >> >he's getting 3 tricks with that illegal line of play, especially since I >> >can't adjust for the revoke-that-never-happened after the hand is played. >> >> Of course you can. > >This is proof by assertion. I've asked you before to list the laws in order >that allow you to adjust for a claim-made revoke. L70. >> >> > Because the Law offers no authority otherwise. If it does, >>you'll >> >>have >> >> >to cite which laws in order allow you to do so. Though in this >>example I >> >> >would consider a losing duck to the queen, resulting in 2 tricks. >> >> >> >> That's easy: L70D gives us the authority for my approach. >> > >> >Law 70D gives you no authority to assign a penalty for a revoke that >>didn't >> >happen. The effect of L70D is that you'll be forced to rule on the claim >>as >> >if there had been no claim statement, or at least no part of the claim >> >statement dealing with the trick of the irregularity and beyond. >> >> That is not what L70D says. > >Sorry, you are right. Claimer does get to attempt to propose a new line of >play. As the KH is out already, there is no normal line of play that yields >less than 3 tricks. Claimer's new line of play is allowed to stand because >L70D cannot nullify it, so claimer does not revoke and gets all 3 tricks. >But this is only true because all legal plays lead to getting all 3 tricks, >so the situation is still congruent to having made no claim statement. > >L70D restricts director's ability to be compassionate, but does not >authorize director to do anything. So I still don't see why you're relying >on it as the source of authority. > >However, what I said previously would be exactly the effect of 70D. >Claimer, not being held to his illegal line of play and unable to suggest a >new one, is ruled against as if he made no claim statement. That is proof by assertion. There is nothing in the Laws to support this argument. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 20:53:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JAr8206246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:53:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JAr2t06242 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:53:03 +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 f3JAqwC05843 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:52:59 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f3JAqwt08775 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:52:58 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:52:57 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 LAA07218 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:52:56 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA02608 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:52:55 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:52:55 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200104191052.LAA02608@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes: > But it > is not impossible for declarer to revoke, or to lead from the wrong > hand - and if he claims that he will do any of these things, then let > the defenders derive the benefit that they would have derived had he > actually done them. Can I pursue claims that include leading from the wrong hand. In this three card ending at NT, South is in hand and claims: "I will play in order SA S2 D2 winning two spades and losing a diamond". S 43 H 2 D AKQ C AKQ S A2 D 2 North objects, saying that dummy will win the last two tricks. The defence want the benefit of South's LOOT at trick 13. Some contributors to this thread would give the defence a trick. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 19 21:17:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JBHkt06269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:17:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JBHct06265 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:17:39 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA02542; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:17:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Apr 19 13:17:14 2001 +0200 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 <01K2L2UA6HWM005NAP@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:16:30 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:15:52 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:16:24 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B823@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 > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke > > > Todd wrote: > > > Herman believes, or at least appears to, as do I, that a claim > statement > > breaks down at a revoke. > > As, apparently, do Grattan and Kojak. But why should a claim statement > break down at a point where it can still be followed? If a claim > statement includes something that it is impossible for declarer to do, > then by all means treat it as though it has broken down (and you > lily-livered milksops can then award "normal" numbers of tricks to > declarer, while I will give him only legally unavoidable > tricks). But it > is not impossible for declarer to revoke, or to lead from the wrong > hand - and if he claims that he will do any of these things, then let > the defenders derive the benefit that they would have derived had he > actually done them. > > Now, that is equitable, and anything else is not. To justify > it, we use > Law 70A (as DWS points out). But (as Grattan says) there may > be no legal > justification for applying to the adjudication of a claim the > Laws that > would apply to actual play, for there is no actual play. An impasse > appears to have been reached, and I am not sure that it can > be resolved > without clarification of or changes to Law. We have a > pronouncement from > the Secretary of the WBF Laws Commission as to what the Law > actually is, > and his opinion is endorsed by the WBF Chief Tournament Director. That > ought to be enough. Yes, but it would surprise me, if it is. (That is not the reason to react as well, probably contra-productive). But I do not have the idea that these opinions are completely different, may be from a formal point of view but not in practise, when applying the laws. My Florida friends for sure did not say that the statement by the claimer is irrelevant. The TD has to include that statement in his judgement. I prefer to use examples, making clear what we mean to say. In David's example with 6 cards left and declarer and dummy both possessing 3 high trumps and three hearts, declarer announces to ruff three diamonds in dummy and three hearts in his hand. As a TD I would allow him 3 tricks (or more if a defender has AK hearts and no trumps left). It is simply impossible that dummy and defenders would let declarer ruff a heart in dummy. But it is more difficult to decide what happens if dummy has the lead, though we are saved by those who say that the statement tells us that declarer starts playing a diamond. To make a good decision we need to know more about the play till that moment. I think that this approach is consistent with Florida's statement and also with the message David Stevenson sent. 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 Apr 19 22:13:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JCD8f11613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:13:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JCD0t11568 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:13:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.222.114] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14qDIu-0004sP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:12:57 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c0c8c9$f8af65c0$72de7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001101c0c608$e87cb9a0$3df47ad5@pbncomputer> <3ADAB736.23BD8E43@village.uunet.be> <3ADD98D3.D76984B3@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Deleting Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:12:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: > As long as you guys are using judgment, that's all right, > but you seem to be using principles. And those principles > are WRONG. Oh, well. The only "principle" according to which I would describe my view is that declarer is considered to play the cards he has said he would play, in the order in which he has said he will play them, until this becomes physically impossible. I don't have any real difficulty with the notion that he would at some point notice that what he is hypothetically doing is illegal - but if, for example, the illegal thing he is "doing" is leading from the wrong hand, then the defenders should be allowed to let him if they wish, just as they would in normal play. If the illegal thing he is "doing" is revoking, then by all means let someone stop him (either dummy or declarer himself). Of course, the situation is going to be very much more complicated if we follow this rule in the case of a claim by a defender. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that East claims in the position below at no trumps: 2 2 None 2 3 A 3 A None None 3 A 4 4 2 None South, declarer, leads a diamond; East, who thinks that this is a heart, tables his cards and announces that he will win the trick and cash his two other aces. Now, has he revoked? If not, how many penalty cards does he have, and how many tricks does declarer make? If he "cannot" revoke, and "cannot" produce penalty cards, how many tricks would Grattan allow him to make? 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 Apr 19 22:35:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JCZhn19706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:35:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JCZat19667 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:35:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.222.114] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14qDem-0005CU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:35:32 +0100 Message-ID: <004901c0c8cd$20a97040$72de7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200104191052.LAA02608@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:34:48 +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 Robin wrote: > Can I pursue claims that include leading from the wrong hand. > > In this three card ending at NT, South is in hand and claims: > "I will play in order SA S2 D2 winning two spades and losing > a diamond". > > S 43 > H 2 > D AKQ > C AKQ > S A2 > D 2 > > North objects, saying that dummy will win the last two tricks. > The defence want the benefit of South's LOOT at trick 13. > > Some contributors to this thread would give the defence a trick. In the three-card ending above, declarer leads SA, then S2, then attempts to lead D2 from his hand. Law 55A permits the defenders to accept this lead, so West makes a trick. Why does the defence lose its right under L55 because declarer has claimed instead of playing? Of course the defence gets a trick - in fact, if declarer were Herman, I would give the defence two tricks (see below). Here, I imagine Herman would say that the claim statement has "broken down" because declarer cannot lead D2 from his hand to trick 13, since he is in dummy. But, since in actual play he obviously could lead D2 from his hand despite being in dummy, the claim should be adjudicated on the basis that this is what he would do. Again, Herman would say that in reality, declarer would notice at the end of trick 12 that he was in dummy and not in his hand. But on what basis do we assert that a declarer who has not noticed in which hand he will win trick 12 would in reality notice in which hand he did win trick 12? Even if this line of reasoning is not acceptable (and I know that to many, it is not), there remains this consideration. Declarer believes that D2 is a winner; there is no evidence as to his belief about H2, but it seems reasonable to assume that he does not know its status. Now, if we are going to allow him to "wake up" at some point to the fact that the second spade will be taken in the dummy, why should we not say that this point will occur *before* he leads S2 to trick 12? In that case, he will obviously attempt to cash D2 at trick 12, and not at trick 13 - result: two tricks to West. 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 Apr 19 23:00:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JCxk228403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:59:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JCxct28362 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:59:39 +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 f3JCxXC20826; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:59:34 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f3JCxXk23802; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:59:33 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:59:32 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07441; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:59:31 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA02636; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:59:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:59:30 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200104191259.NAA02636@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, dburn@btinternet.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > > Robin wrote: > > > Can I pursue claims that include leading from the wrong hand. > > > > In this three card ending at NT, South is in hand and claims: > > "I will play in order SA S2 D2 winning two spades and losing > > a diamond". > > > > S 43 > > H 2 > > D AKQ > > C AKQ > > S A2 > > D 2 > > [snip] > Even if this line of reasoning is not acceptable (and I know that to > many, it is not), there remains this consideration. Declarer believes > that D2 is a winner; there is no evidence as to his belief about H2, but [snip] It was not my intention that declarer believes that D2 is a winner: the claim statement ended "... and losing a diamond". -- 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 Apr 19 23:24:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JDNmp06939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:23:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JDNft06904 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:23:42 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA14869; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:23:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Apr 19 15:23:12 2001 +0200 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 <01K2L78LDB54005PF4@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:22:34 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:21:56 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:22:18 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Deleting To: "'David Burn'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B825@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 > Suppose, for the > sake of argument, that East claims in the position below at no trumps: > > 2 > 2 > None > 2 > 3 A > 3 A > None None > 3 A > 4 > 4 > 2 > None > > South, declarer, leads a diamond; East, who thinks that this > is a heart, > tables his cards and announces that he will win the trick and cash his > two other aces. Now, has he revoked? no, If not, how many penalty > cards does > he have, you did not tell us that partner west immediately objected, so the claim stands: no penalty cards. if west does object we have a problem. Play has to be continued but east showed three cards. This is not well covered by the laws, I think. I would let east pick up his cards, UI etc, etc. and how many tricks does declarer make? This depends on previous play. Does east know that south is void in clubs? Depending on yes/no the answer is 1/3. If he > "cannot" revoke, > and "cannot" produce penalty cards, how many tricks would > Grattan allow > him to make? > This is not the same answer, since we are talking about east now. > David Burn > London, England 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 Apr 19 23:27:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JDQva08009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:26:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JDQot07969 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:26:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.222.114] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14qESI-0002v6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:26:42 +0100 Message-ID: <007001c0c8d4$467ea220$72de7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200104191259.NAA02636@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:25:58 +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 I wrote a load of rubbish, because I accidentally deleted a couple of sentences before hitting the Send button. > It was not my intention that declarer believes that D2 is a winner: > the claim statement ended "... and losing a diamond". Quite right. What I meant to write was: Even if this line of reasoning is not acceptable (and I know that to many, it is not), there remains this consideration. Suppose that instead of conceding the last trick, declarer attempted to claim all the tricks on the basis that his diamond was good. Declarer believes that D2 is a winner; there is no evidence as to his belief about H2, but it seems reasonable to assume that he does not know its status. Now, if we are going to allow him to "wake up" at some point to the fact that the second spade will be taken in the dummy, why should we not say that this point will occur *before* he leads S2 to trick 12? In that case, he will obviously attempt to cash D2 at trick 12, and not at trick 13 - result: two tricks to West. What I was attempting to do with the above was to illustrate that there may be considerations regarding the point at which a claim breaks down that are not at once apparent. I do not believe that directors or committees should be called upon to make decisions about what a claimer would or would not have noticed in actual play, or when he would or would not have noticed it. I believe, as I have stated more than once, that the rules by which a claim is adjudicated should be purely mechanical ones. If it is possible for claimer to play his cards in the order in which he has stated them, then - even if this involves an illegal play at some point - his claim should be adjudicated as if he had played strictly in accordance with his statement, giving the defenders those options and penalties in respect of any illegal play that they would have enjoyed had play actually proceeded. If it is not physically possible for declarer to play in accordance with his statement - as, for example, if he announces that he will play a card he has not got, or if his statement does not allow determination of what he would actually play at any given point - then he gets only those tricks that he could not lose by any legal play of those cards not covered by his statement. Pace Florida, I know that this is not the Law. I know, or at least I think I know, what the Law is, and I will of course do my best to uphold it when called upon in any official capacity. But, as King Gama so aptly put it: Don't the days seem lank and long When all goes right, and nothing goes wrong? And isn't your life extremely flat With nothing whatever to grumble at? (W S Gilbert, "Princess Ida") 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 Apr 20 00:19:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JEJHV26617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:19:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r16.mx.aol.com (imo-r16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JEJAt26577 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:19:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 3.74.9b93a19 (3951); Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:18:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <74.9b93a19.28104dba@aol.com> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:18:34 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke To: dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_74.9b93a19.28104dba_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_74.9b93a19.28104dba_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/19/01 5:33:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dburn@btinternet.com writes: > and you > Gee, and all it took was to disagree with Mr. Burn to have the world finally know what I am. FINALLY, I've been found out! I cherish this description, accept it with humility, am having it etched, posted, engraved, and will prominently display it at all future tournaments. It accurately describes my behavior to one and all who over the last fifty years may have felt much differently about my performance -- starting with my wife. You will be quoted for all eternity. What were you imbibing at the time? I'd like to order some. On a lighter note, this is a BLML discussion and my comments are not as Chief Tournament Director WBF. My pronouncements in that role are reserved for my actions when Director In Charge of a WBF tournament -- See Law 81 C 5, (where they will be THE SAME, of course). I have a suspicion that you may also hear from Grattan -- your timing is prescient, he is presently en-route home and unable to respond immediately. Kojak --part1_74.9b93a19.28104dba_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/19/01 5:33:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dburn@btinternet.com writes:




and you
lily-livered milksops


Gee, and all it took was to disagree with Mr. Burn to have the world finally
know what I am.

FINALLY, I've been found out!  I cherish this description, accept it with
humility, am having it etched, posted, engraved, and will prominently display
it at all future tournaments.  It accurately describes my behavior to one and
all who over the last fifty years may have felt much differently about my
performance -- starting with my wife. You will be quoted for all eternity.
What were you imbibing at the time?  I'd like to order some.

On a lighter note, this is a BLML discussion and my comments are not as Chief
Tournament Director WBF.  My pronouncements in that role are reserved for my
actions when Director In Charge of a WBF tournament --
See Law  81 C 5, (where they will be THE SAME, of course).
I have a suspicion that you may also hear from Grattan -- your timing is
prescient, he is presently en-route home and unable to respond immediately.

Kojak









--part1_74.9b93a19.28104dba_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 02:28:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JGSAm29814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:28:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JGRpt29740 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:27:54 +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 14qHHV-000AM0-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:27:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:10:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More on Law 34 References: <200104111538.IAA26794@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200104111538.IAA26794@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 >> > >> >I think I've discovered an ambiguity in the Laws: >> > >> >North East South West >> > 1NT pass pass >> >pass(1) >> > >> >(1) out of turn >> > >> > >> >It appears that the conditions stated by Law 34 are met, since a call >> >has been followed by three passes, one of those passes was out of >> >rotation, and West has been deprived of a chance to call. If we apply >> >Law 34, it says that the auction reverts to West, and the auction >> >proceeds as though there had been no irregularity---with no penalty >> >for anyone. But is this right? Nobody has accepted the pass out of >> >turn, so shouldn't L30B1 be applied instead? That is, the auction >> >reverts to West *and* North is penalized by being required to pass at >> >his next turn. I think a clarification is needed in the Laws. >> >> There is no need for a clarification: you seem to be ignoring the Law >> to try to cause a problem. You never apply L34 without applying the >> Pass out of turn Law first: that would be ridiculous. > >Uh, what Law am I ignoring? I've already mentioned Law 34 and 30B1, >so I'm obviously not ignoring those. Is there some other Law other >than those two that I *am* ignoring, that applies here to tell us that >L30 takes precedence over L34? > >I also think it's correct to apply L30B1 first; but my thinking is >that a TD called to rule on this situation could look in the Law book, >see that L30B1 applies, see that L34 also applies, notice that the two >lead to different results, and be mystified about what to do. Those >of us who discuss the Laws frequently can pretty much guess "what they >meant to say", but I don't see anything in the text of the Laws that >would make the opposite interpretation "ridiculous" for a TD without >the privileged knowledge that we here have. If you see something >there that I don't see, could you point me to it? Since I just do not understand you, perhaps I shall just write what I meant again. The bidding goes W N E S 1NT ... ... Pass Pass Pass You wrote [see above] >Nobody has accepted the pass out of >> >turn, But they have, otherwise the auction would have gone W N E S 1NT ... ... Pass [cancelled] and the auction would have reverted to North. We cannot reach L34 without a POOT being accepted. What is wrong with 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 Fri Apr 20 02:28:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JGRpR29728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:27:51 +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 f3JGRht29692 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:27:43 +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 14qHHM-000AM0-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:27:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:42:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104191052.LAA02608@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200104191052.LAA02608@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 Burn writes: >> But it >> is not impossible for declarer to revoke, or to lead from the wrong >> hand - and if he claims that he will do any of these things, then let >> the defenders derive the benefit that they would have derived had he >> actually done them. > >Can I pursue claims that include leading from the wrong hand. > >In this three card ending at NT, South is in hand and claims: >"I will play in order SA S2 D2 winning two spades and losing > a diamond". > > S 43 > H 2 >D AKQ > C AKQ > S A2 > D 2 > >North objects, saying that dummy will win the last two tricks. >The defence want the benefit of South's LOOT at trick 13. > >Some contributors to this thread would give the defence a trick. If, Robin, you were at the table, and were convinced that declarer would have played it that way, would you then see it is equitable not to give the defence a trick? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 02:28:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JGS5p29797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:28:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JGRmt29719 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:27:49 +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 14qHHT-000ALr-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:27:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:48:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104161547.IAA14879@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 Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >>The point is, we try to figure out what would have happened if he had >>played it out instead of claiming. And if he had played it out >>instead of claiming, he would not have faced his cards, and 64B3 would >>not apply. >> >>I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp. Maybe I'm doing >>a particularly poor job of explaining myself. > >I think the immediate problem was that I viewed your "hypothetical >play" idea in the context of the claim that, it seemed to me, >instigated it, taking it to begin from the point the claim was made - >since a claim is a legitimate action which, while its accuracy can be >disputed, cannot be rejected out of hand (iow, no one can require >claimer to "play it out"). Yet you are including in your hypothesis >the assertion that the claim never happened. I don't see how that can >be. :-) If there is a contested claim, the TD then makes a determination of what, in his view, would have happened without the claim. If you decide what would have happened without the claim you are deciding what would have happened without cards being faced as part of the claim. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 02:28:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JGS9u29811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:28:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JGRot29730 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:27:50 +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 14qHHT-000ALs-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:27:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:59:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B806@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B806@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 > >> >> Was a call followed by three passes? Yes, 1NT was followed >> by p p p. >> Was one of those passes out of rotation? Yes, West's pass. >> Did someone lose their right to call at that turn? Yes, South has >> lost his right to call. >> >> So, the passes are cancelled, and the bidding reverts to South. >> >> >> Aha, I know what you are going to say: East lost his turn as well! > >And isn't that true? > >> Ok, well, I suppose it is not 100% unambiguous. > >no, no, you are right it is 100% unambiguous. > >ton > > > But unless >> you really >> want to start applying Laws when they are clearly not meant, this is a >> Law to stop a player not being allowed to call at all, > >that is your law 34, not wbf's. OK, tell me how we actually apply your Law. It does not seem to work if you will not allow the commonsense approach that we have been taught. I do not find following Laws that are unambiguous, except in the very rare cases where we are convinced the wording is flawed. When we have more than one construction that make sense, then we need an interpretation form somewhere. But we have two interpretations. As far as I can see, one interpretation works, one does not. Why should I assume the latter is the WBF's, and the former mine? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 02:28:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JGS6S29800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:28:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JGRot29736 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:27:51 +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 14qHHV-000ALv-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:27:47 +0100 Message-ID: <4b0A2DCzyw36Ewvb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:05:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? References: <200104132128.RAA29059@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00dd01c0c4ec$2fdfdca0$25053dd4@default> In-Reply-To: <00dd01c0c4ec$2fdfdca0$25053dd4@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen writes >L34 in force says that "All subsequent passes are cancelled, and the >auction proceeds as though there has been no irregularity." >This is left when L34 has been applied: >N E S W >1NT > >Is there any reason for further discussion? No, I find this argument totally convincing. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 02:33:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JGXha01646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:33:43 +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 ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JGXat01604 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:33:37 +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 JAA32354; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:33:30 -0700 Message-Id: <200104191633.JAA32354@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:34:48 BST." <004901c0c8cd$20a97040$72de7ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:33:29 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Robin wrote: > > > Can I pursue claims that include leading from the wrong hand. > > > > In this three card ending at NT, South is in hand and claims: > > "I will play in order SA S2 D2 winning two spades and losing > > a diamond". > > > > S 43 > > H 2 > > D AKQ > > C AKQ > > S A2 > > D 2 > > > > North objects, saying that dummy will win the last two tricks. > > The defence want the benefit of South's LOOT at trick 13. > > > > Some contributors to this thread would give the defence a trick. > > . . . Again, Herman would say that in > reality, declarer would notice at the end of trick 12 that he was in > dummy and not in his hand. But on what basis do we assert that a > declarer who has not noticed in which hand he will win trick 12 would in > reality notice in which hand he did win trick 12? This example raises an interesting issue. If this is what Herman would say, I'd agree with him here. On the other hand, I've been supporting the side that says that we should adjudicate the original post on the assumption that declarer might have revoked in actual play, and possibly awarding the defense a revoke penalty. To me there's a subtle difference between the two cases, but it's difficult to describe just why I feel that way. However, let me try. The original example, Example 1, looked something like this: (1) S -- H A43 D -- H2 led C -- by W S 2 H Q D -- C 2 Spades trumps. South claims, saying he'll ruff the diamond, cash a club and play a heart to the ace. To avoid some of the distracting issues, we'll assume that South has *not* said anything that would indicate he suddenly noticed the lead was a heart, and that North is not present at the table, since, being a Certified Caffeine Addict and having drunk six cups of coffee during the previous ten boards, he has found it necessary to run to the bathroom after putting down the dummy on this hand. I'm going to throw in another example, in which (believe it or not) illegal play is *not* a factor: (2) S 8 H --- D --- C 865 S 7 S --- H 5 H 6432 D --- D --- C 42 C --- S 10 H AKQ D --- C --- Spades trumps. Declarer, in hand, lays down his hand, saying he'll cash the top hearts pitching clubs from dummy. Declarer has forgotten about the outstanding trump. However, I don't think any of us would give a trick to the defense. Even though declarer has said he would pitch clubs on the hearts, when West actually plays his spade on the second (or third) heart, South isn't going to pitch a club---he's going to overruff. After that, there's nothing he can do to lose another trick. The general principle here is that the appearance of the S7 will force South to notice that his original line won't work. At that point, we'd consider it "irrational", as opposed to "careless", for South not to overruff; thus, condition L70C3 is not met and we do not award the trick to the defense. The difference between this and (1) is that in (2) something has happened that makes South take notice, while in (1) nothing new has come up. West laid his H2 on the table, and South saw it and thought it was a diamond. If play had continued, NOTHING NEW would have happened that would have caused South to see things differently. The H2 would not have jumped up and down, or spontaneously moved closer to South's face causing South to see its true identity, or anything like that. Nothing would have changed. (*) I believe that's the main principle for deciding whether we allow an imaginary line of play in which claimer deviates from his stated line. Here's why I believe that Robin's example is closer to (2) than to (1): (3) S 43 H 2 D --- C --- S --- S --- H --- H --- D AKQ D --- C --- C AKQ S A2 H --- D 2 C --- At notrump, South states that he'll win the SA and S2 and then concede the diamond. If he were to play it out, he'd win the SA, then he'd play the S2 and dummy would play the S4. Is this "new information" that would wake South up to the fact that he will now be in dummy and not in hand? I think it is. The reason is that cards that are played are placed in a different position than when they are among other hands in one's hand or in the dummy. I think that when Trick 12 is actually played, it's nearly certain that declarer will notice that dummy is winning the trick, even though he did not notice this before when he was about to lead to Trick 11. This is based on my judgment that players "see" the cards in the current trick differently than they see the cards in the whole hand. Yeah, I know that this is a rather fuzzy distinction, which is why I sympathize with David's later comment: > What I was attempting to do with the above was to illustrate that there > may be considerations regarding the point at which a claim breaks down > that are not at once apparent. I do not believe that directors or > committees should be called upon to make decisions about what a claimer > would or would not have noticed in actual play, or when he would or > would not have noticed it. I believe, as I have stated more than once, > that the rules by which a claim is adjudicated should be purely > mechanical ones. . . . Following this philosophy, we'd award the defenders a trick in Example (2) as well. I don't think this would be a bad thing either; sloppy claims by the opponents are a nuisance and I wouldn't be grieved to see them penalized more harshly. But (as David pointed out) it's not the current Law. I'm just trying to explain why, within the spirit of the current Law, it's not inconsistent to rule that claimer would have revoked in one instance and would *not* have led from the wrong hand in another instance. -- Adam (*) Or would it? If East follows with a heart, would East's play have possibly awakened South to the fact that West actually led a heart? Yet another judgment call. I think this might have woke South up, but it's far from certain and may even be less than 50% probable. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 03:09:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JH8gd13780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:08:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JH8Zt13746 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:08:35 +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 f3JH8VC21303 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:08:32 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f3JH8VS25108 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:08:31 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:08:30 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07723 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:08:29 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA03509 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:08:29 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:08:29 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200104191708.SAA03509@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > >North objects, saying that dummy will win the last two tricks. > >The defence want the benefit of South's LOOT at trick 13. > > > >Some contributors to this thread would give the defence a trick. > > If, Robin, you were at the table, and were convinced that declarer > would have played it that way, would you then see it is equitable not to > give the defence a trick? No. As a player, I was taught that claiming had two benefits: a) the game was speeded up, b) I could not make mechanical mistakes, such as playing from the wrong hand (as declarer) or revoking (or forgetting how a double squeeze works :-)). Perhaps the people who taught me this were wrong but it still seems a neat idea. Perhaps my subsequent training as TD should have disabused me of that notion. Perhaps we can consider the one card ending resulting from this claim: H 2 D A C A D 2 In NT, South concedes "losing a diamond" but the lead is in North. Before the correction period ends, N/S attempt to withdraw the concession and I (as TD) read L71A: "if a player has conceded ... a trick his side could not have lost by any LEGAL play of the remaining cards." and I give them the last trick. Wouldn't you? 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 Apr 20 03:31:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JHVDY17413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:31:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JHV7t17409 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:31:07 +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 KAA00957; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:31:03 -0700 Message-Id: <200104191731.KAA00957@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] More on Law 34 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:10:48 BST." Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:31:02 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes > > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> Adam Beneschan writes > >> > > >> >I think I've discovered an ambiguity in the Laws: > >> > > >> >North East South West > >> > 1NT pass pass > >> >pass(1) > >> > > >> >(1) out of turn > >> > > >> > > >> >It appears that the conditions stated by Law 34 are met, since a call > >> >has been followed by three passes, one of those passes was out of > >> >rotation, and West has been deprived of a chance to call. If we apply > >> >Law 34, it says that the auction reverts to West, and the auction > >> >proceeds as though there had been no irregularity---with no penalty > >> >for anyone. But is this right? Nobody has accepted the pass out of > >> >turn, so shouldn't L30B1 be applied instead? That is, the auction > >> >reverts to West *and* North is penalized by being required to pass at > >> >his next turn. I think a clarification is needed in the Laws. > >> > >> There is no need for a clarification: you seem to be ignoring the Law > >> to try to cause a problem. You never apply L34 without applying the > >> Pass out of turn Law first: that would be ridiculous. > > > >Uh, what Law am I ignoring? I've already mentioned Law 34 and 30B1, > >so I'm obviously not ignoring those. Is there some other Law other > >than those two that I *am* ignoring, that applies here to tell us that > >L30 takes precedence over L34? > > > >I also think it's correct to apply L30B1 first; but my thinking is > >that a TD called to rule on this situation could look in the Law book, > >see that L30B1 applies, see that L34 also applies, notice that the two > >lead to different results, and be mystified about what to do. Those > >of us who discuss the Laws frequently can pretty much guess "what they > >meant to say", but I don't see anything in the text of the Laws that > >would make the opposite interpretation "ridiculous" for a TD without > >the privileged knowledge that we here have. If you see something > >there that I don't see, could you point me to it? > > Since I just do not understand you, perhaps I shall just write what I > meant again. > > The bidding goes W N E S > 1NT ... ... Pass > Pass Pass > You wrote [see above] > >Nobody has accepted the pass out of > >> >turn, > > But they have, otherwise the auction would have gone > > W N E S > 1NT ... ... Pass [cancelled] > > and the auction would have reverted to North. We cannot reach L34 > without a POOT being accepted. > > What is wrong with that? What's wrong is that you've shown a different auction from mine. In yours, West opened and South passed out of turn. In mine, West opened, East passed in turn, South passed in turn, and then North passed out of turn. Certainly, in your case, it's mathematically impossible for there to be three passes without the out-of-turn pass having been accepted. But that's not true in my example. -- 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 Apr 20 04:06:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JI6jJ20090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:06:46 +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 ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JI6dt20086 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:06:40 +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 LAA01760; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:06:35 -0700 Message-Id: <200104191806.LAA01760@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] More on Law 34 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:31:02 PDT." <200104191731.KAA00957@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:06:33 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following random keystrokes emanated from my fingers: > What's wrong is that you've shown a different auction from mine. In > yours, West opened and South passed out of turn. In mine, West ^^^^ > opened, East passed in turn, South passed in turn, and then North > passed out of turn. Uh, make that "North opened". -- 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 Apr 20 04:35:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JIZPj20115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:35:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JIZJt20111 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:35:20 +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 OAA14889 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:35:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA03740 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:35:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:35:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104191835.OAA03740@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > > If no, why is declarer's faced hand different from dummy's faced hand? > > -- > > Because it is also faced in the "imaginary movie". > From: David Stevenson > If you decide what would have happened without the claim you are > deciding what would have happened without cards being faced as part of > the claim. Case A: declarer's hand is concealed. Case B: declarer's hand is face up on the table. If you rule Case B the same as Case A because in some different universe, the situation might have been as in Case A... well, words very nearly fail me. All I can say is that you are ignoring the plain language of L64B3. > From: "David Burn" > But it > is not impossible for declarer to revoke, or to lead from the wrong > hand - and if he claims that he will do any of these things, then let > the defenders derive the benefit that they would have derived had he > actually done them. The defenders have an explicit right to accept a lead from the wrong hand (L53A). If you want to allow the revoke -- and I am becoming convinced that L44C should take precedence, but David B. doesn't believe that -- then an avenue to the proper result is to let the revoke become established, then apply L64C. This will work out the same as not allowing the revoke in most cases. The one thing I'm sure is wrong is to exact penalty tricks when there's an explicit law forbidding it. [lead from wrong hand] > From: David Stevenson > If you would not allow such a claim > [assume for argument that it is a position where the non-claimers would > clearly accept the LOOT because it is to their benefit] then it is > difficult to see why the logic for revokes is different. It doesn't seem difficult to see that L53A and L44C are different. OK, if you don't buy that, go ahead and allow the revoke, then restore equity via L64C. But whatever you do, don't ignore the plain language of L64B3. > From: "David Burn" > Suppose, for the > sake of argument, that East claims in the position below at no trumps: > > 2 > 2 > None > 2 > 3 A > 3 A > None None > 3 A > 4 > 4 > 2 > None > > South, declarer, leads a diamond; East, who thinks that this is a heart, > tables his cards and announces that he will win the trick and cash his > two other aces. First of all, this is a _claim_, not a concession. West's objection cannot cancel a claim, in contrast to a concession. (We have had that discussion before.) L68D applies, and play is over. The TD will rule on any doubtful points. Penalty cards are not an issue, but the future play will be judged on the basis that East's cards are UI to West. > Now, has he revoked? I don't see how East can revoke when he has no cards of the suit led. > If not, how many penalty cards does he have, None. East has claimed. > and how many tricks does declarer make? This needs judgment and probably knowledge of the prior play. However, *absent other information*, it looks as though West will discard the heart ace on the diamond (thinking a heart has been led) and might well discard the spade ace on the heart that declarer will lead next. So declarer will virtually always get two tricks, and unless there is something special about the prior play (for example declarer having shown out of clubs in a way that East will clearly remember), will get three. The main point of judgment will be whether discarding the S-A at trick 12 is irrational or merely careless. I think the outcome, if not the principle, will satisfy even David B. It seems off-topic, though, because there is no question of illegal play. It is just an ordinary disputed claim. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 04:49:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JIniv22940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:49:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe25.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JInYt22880 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:49:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:49:27 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.165.208] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <003001c0c8b3$1bdc56a0$925d073e@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:33:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2001 18:49:27.0510 (UTC) FILETIME=[75D02760:01C0C901] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 4:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke | Todd wrote: | | > Herman believes, or at least appears to, as do I, that a claim | statement | > breaks down at a revoke. | | As, apparently, do Grattan and Kojak. But why should a claim statement | break down at a point where it can still be followed? If a claim | statement includes something that it is impossible for declarer to do, | then by all means treat it as though it has broken down (and you | lily-livered milksops can then award "normal" numbers of tricks to | declarer, while I will give him only legally unavoidable tricks). But it | is not impossible for declarer to revoke, or to lead from the wrong | hand - and if he claims that he will do any of these things, then let | the defenders derive the benefit that they would have derived had he | actually done them. | Now, that is equitable, and anything else is not. I do not think that the viewpoint of what is equitable here is sufficiently satisfactory. 1. I would think that if nothing else, equity is a reflection of what was earned. I think it is better to view a claim statement as a contract for specific performance. After all, is it not what the player has earned? 2. The concept of specific performance can be illustrated as follows: Where execution of the contract includes unlawful acts [revoke, not playing PC as required, POOT, card no longer available, etc] the execution is necessarily interrupted and an adjudicated line is substituted to get over the rough spot. [which must be normal but may be ‘advantageous’ if it is irrational to not take it.] When it becomes possible to resume execution of the clarification, then execution is resumed. I suggest that this is the equitable view and that other views so far expressed are less equitable, or inequitable. Taking it to the natural conclusion that as asserted by the LC while the claim laws are law and often generate equitable resolutions, they are not equitable because from the point the clarification breaks down what claimer has earned is discarded. regards roger pewick | To justify it, we use | Law 70A (as DWS points out). But (as Grattan says) there may be no legal | justification for applying to the adjudication of a claim the Laws that | would apply to actual play, for there is no actual play. An impasse | appears to have been reached, and I am not sure that it can be resolved | without clarification of or changes to Law. We have a pronouncement from | the Secretary of the WBF Laws Commission as to what the Law actually is, | and his opinion is endorsed by the WBF Chief Tournament Director. That | ought to be enough. | | David Burn | London, England | | | -- | ====================================================================== == | (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with | "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. | A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ | -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 04:49:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JInkX22947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:49:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe13.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.117]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3JInat22892 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:49:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:49:28 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.165.208] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:02:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2001 18:49:28.0966 (UTC) FILETIME=[76AE5260:01C0C901] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 2 2 32 void 3 void void JT9 KQJ A Void void Void AKQ T void The contract is NT, lead is in the south [declarer]. Declarer calls for dummy's spade, played. RHO is scratching his head for a few seconds and declarer then says 'I have the rest, taking three hearts.' W feels he is entitled to the rest by his partner unblocking the D ace on the spade. However a claim of the last four tricks has occurred and no one has yet accepted the LOOT. A lot of clarification of the law has taken place recently. So, In strict accordance with law, what is the adjudication? And does it seem right, irrespective of the law? As an added dimension, according to the clarification, claimer was to pitch the diamond on the spade for T10. Must the adjudication in this case call for the lead of the diamond at T10? 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 Apr 20 06:37:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3JKb3025412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:37:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3JKaut25377 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:36:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4o2.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.2]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18603; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:36:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004b01c0c910$d7ee1ce0$0213f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200104101410.KAA29252@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002701c0c2a1$bd1afe80$1c10f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:39:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 Surely you do not maintain you would not have awarded declarer all three tricks in the absence of a claim statement? There was no intent to be rude...my apologies that it seemed so. I do, however, find it exceedingly upsetting to penalise declarer here on the basis of a statement that he will take an illegal action when it is overwhelmingly likely it would have been a correctable action without penalty. My opinion of your directing ability is that shared by most of the world...you are in the highest rank, with a great knowledge of the laws and a fine ability to interpret them in practical settings to keep a game moving fairly and smoothly. Whatever made you suspect differently? Even in this case where we disagree, I can see your point of view based on the relative likelihood of dummy not exercising his rights. My comment about a sane ruling was not directed at the actual case but at the hypothetical one in which no claim statement was made. We would not then assume a revoke due to it being irrational. I see that you and DALB share more than an occasional agreement...you both have a telent for sarcasm. :-) I put that down to the superior intellect you both possess. Still I take no offense...and really wish you would cease to be so thin skinned. It is one of the few flaws in a person I and most on the list regard very highly. The other: I have been led to believe you occasionally indulge in spirits...I wonder if the two are related. :-) Go ahead, show me I'm wrong if you are able...but please do not take my argument on a point of applying the law to be a cheap shot at your abilities. Neither of us deserve that. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke > Craig Senior writes > >This may be so in England or in very high level play. In a > >typical club game or sectional here is would be most unusual for > >dummy NOT to protect. Dummy almost always performs his functions > >rather than goes gallivanting off in search of fuel to poison > >his intellect. > > > >This may be related to our zonal option of allowing "No spades > >partner" to defenders as well. Players form the habit of always > >asking, and follow this as dummy as well. > > That may very well be true. When defenders were allowed to warn each > other about revokes, dummies used to as well: when it was changed here > and defenders were no longer permitted to do so, dummies seemed > generally to stop doing so as well. > > >As to the case, it is so obvious that declarer has all three > >tricks, and would be awarded them by a sane director in the > >absence of any claim statement, that it seems to strain at gnats > >to penalise him for claiming for a revoke that has not occured > >yet and were it to occur would almost certainly not become > >established. > > It's all very well to make comments like this. I do dislike the > method of being rude to bolster a weak argument. > > Thankyou for your estimate of my abilities as a director. > Unfortunately for me, I am more interested in [a] following the rules of > the game and [b] attempting to bring justice to sides that do not cause > problems than to worry about other people's opinions of my rulings. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 11:06:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K157x08272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:05:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3K14Yt08096 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:04:47 +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 14qPLV-0004eg-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 01:04:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 01:55:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 34 or not? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B806@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes > OK, tell me how we actually apply your Law. It does not seem to work >if you will not allow the commonsense approach that we have been taught. > > I do not find following Laws that are unambiguous, except in the very >rare cases where we are convinced the wording is flawed. When we have >more than one construction that make sense, then we need an >interpretation form somewhere. > > But we have two interpretations. As far as I can see, one >interpretation works, one does not. Why should I assume the latter is >the WBF's, and the former mine? This answer has been superseded by another post convincing me I am wrong. So ignore this one 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 Fri Apr 20 11:06:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K14xg08226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:04:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3K14Wt08085 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:04:33 +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 14qPLT-000KEh-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 01:04:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 01:54:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104101410.KAA29252@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002701c0c2a1$bd1afe80$1c10f7a5@james> <004b01c0c910$d7ee1ce0$0213f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: <004b01c0c910$d7ee1ce0$0213f7a5@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 >I do, however, find it exceedingly upsetting to penalise >declarer here on the basis of a statement that he will take an >illegal action when it is overwhelmingly likely it would have >been a correctable action without penalty. Well, I never said that. As I have pointed out in several places, if people really think it is worth ignoring the main legal argument of this thread in favour of a long and involved discussion about how to decide the facts in a case, feel free to include me out. But for those of us who are interested in the Laws and how to apply them, the question is whether a revoke can be part of a claim. Now surely you can see that this is of no interest in boring rulings where the Director decides that there would be no revoke if it was played out. What earthly point is there in discussing that? Ok, I agree, if there is no real chance that a player would revoke if he played the hand out then we would not assume he had revoked via a claim. But it still does not answer what you do when you believe that a player would have revoked and it become established if he had played the hand out. >Go ahead, show me I'm wrong if you are able...but please do not >take my argument on a point of applying the law to be a cheap >shot at your abilities. Neither of us deserve that. I find your reaction surprising, and feel you totally misunderstood the tenor of my remarks. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 11:06:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K14xm08224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:04:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3K14Yt08095 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:04:47 +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 14qPLT-000ENK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 01:04:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 01:44:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104191708.SAA03509@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200104191708.SAA03509@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 >> If, Robin, you were at the table, and were convinced that declarer >> would have played it that way, would you then see it is equitable not to >> give the defence a trick? > >No. > >As a player, I was taught that claiming had two benefits: >a) the game was speeded up, >b) I could not make mechanical mistakes, such as playing > from the wrong hand (as declarer) or revoking > (or forgetting how a double squeeze works :-)). > >Perhaps the people who taught me this were wrong but it still seems >a neat idea. > >Perhaps my subsequent training as TD should have disabused me of that >notion. > >Perhaps we can consider the one card ending resulting from this claim: > > H 2 >D A C A > D 2 > >In NT, South concedes "losing a diamond" but the lead is in North. >Before the correction period ends, N/S attempt to withdraw the >concession and I (as TD) read L71A: > "if a player has conceded ... a trick his side could not > have lost by any LEGAL play of the remaining cards." >and I give them the last trick. > >Wouldn't you? Yes, of course, but this is not a ruling under L70A. The principles of L71 are different. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 12:29:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K2S9N07540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:28:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3K2S2t07514 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:28:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.215.203] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14qQeL-0001TA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:27:58 +0100 Message-ID: <004301c0c941$6a8a9c60$cbd77ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200104191835.OAA03740@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:26:36 +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 Steve wrote: > If you want to allow the revoke -- and I am becoming convinced that > L44C should take precedence, but David B. doesn't believe that -- Oh, I believe it. If Grattan Endicott and Bill Schoder tell me that something is so - why, it is so, however liable I may be to read it in the Bible. I may or may not believe that it ought to be so, but what I believe is really neither here nor there. I suspect that my position is once again becoming unclear: to clarify it, let me say that whereas I do not consider the approach taken by the Terrible Twins to be the optimum interpretation of Law, and whereas I may continue to voice objections to it, nonetheless it is a workable interpretation of Law and one which I will uphold should any situation comparable to that originally described occur within my severely limited jurisdiction. Vox Floridae, vox Dei. > then > an avenue to the proper result is to let the revoke become established, > then apply L64C. This, however, is rhubarb. As I may have said earlier, one of the reasons why there is so much muddled thinking about the Laws is that people first form their own notions of equity, and then try to interpret the Law to fit those notions, instead of simply reading the words. The fact that Steve refers to the result that would be obtained by application of L64C as "the proper result" indicates an emotional bias that is wholly out of keeping with what is, after all, an intellectual exercise. It is not at all clear that L64C would apply to the actual case, for if it were to do so, then it would also apply to my "sextuple revoke" example (and it is not good enough to say that the latter is "obviously absurd" while the former is "proper"; one needs to be able to show why a Law that is applied in the one case should not be applied in the other). In short, if L64C is held to apply in this case, then all that would be necessary to make almost any contract at all would simply be to claim, facing one's cards, and asserting that one would revoke in order to avoid whatever losers one might have. > This will work out the same as not allowing the > revoke in most cases. Jolly splendid. Since we do not want to allow this revoke, let us resort to a Law which says not that it is not a revoke, but that it is a revoke without penalty. The trouble is that if this revoke is a revoke without penalty, then so is any revoke by a player who has faced his cards and claimed... > The one thing I'm sure is wrong is to exact > penalty tricks when there's an explicit law forbidding it. You are sure that it is wrong to exact penalty tricks in the case of this specific declarer, because you don't want him to lose any of the last three tricks when he has two aces and the only trump. So, instead of not allowing him to revoke (per Grattan), or allowing him to notice in time to correct his revoke (per Herman), you are prepared to allow him to revoke, but to suffer no penalty for so doing because he has faced his hand. But you do not seem to me to see the logical consequence of this approach when applied to other cases. > It doesn't seem difficult to see that L53A and L44C are different. Indeed, the difference between Laws 53 and 44 is, as I calculate, nine. But what DWS is saying is that if in the course of play, someone leads out of turn, then he should pay a penalty; if in the course of play, someone revokes, then he too should pay a penalty. You appear to me to assert that if instead of playing, someone claims, then he should pay a penalty for asserting that he will lead out of turn, while he should pay no penalty for asserting that he will revoke. This makes no sense to DWS, and it makes no sense to me either. Maybe we Davids have a congenital defect in our comprehension (certainly, Herman seems to think that we do). > OK, if you don't buy that, go ahead and allow the revoke, then restore > equity via L64C. But whatever you do, don't ignore the plain language > of L64B3. Shall we ignore the plain language of L64B3 in the sextuple revoke case? If not, what shall we do? 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 Apr 20 14:35:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K4Z0708195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:35:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3K4Yst08191 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:34:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldmeh.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.217.209]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA16175 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3ADFBE28.E5A8B5E8@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:42:16 -0700 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] Law 34 or not? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B806@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 David Stevenson wrote: > [snip] > This answer has been superseded by another post convincing me I am > wrong [snip] David, someone has stolen your e-mail account! We will find the scoundrel, and put paid to this clearly forged statement. --JRM -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 17:24:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K7MHr25518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:22:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3K7MAt25514 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:22:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f3K7M1b16435 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:22:01 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:22 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke 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: <200104191052.LAA02608@tempest.npl.co.uk> David Burn writes: > Can I pursue claims that include leading from the wrong hand. > > In this three card ending at NT, South is in hand and claims: > "I will play in order SA S2 D2 winning two spades and losing > a diamond". > > S 43 > H 2 > D AKQ > C AKQ > S A2 > D 2 > > North objects, saying that dummy will win the last two tricks. > The defence want the benefit of South's LOOT at trick 13. > > Some contributors to this thread would give the defence a trick. As indeed would I. I think it reasonable to assume that declarer might not notice he was in dummy and that West would accept the lead with alacrity. David Burn's example seems equally trivial. > 2 > 2 > None > 2 > 3 A > 3 A > None None > 3 A > 4 > 4 > 2 > None > > South, declarer, leads a diamond; East, who thinks that this is a heart, > tables his cards and announces that he will win the trick and cash his > two other aces. Now, has he revoked I think we all agree that East has not revoked on the diamond lead! However, I think it reasonable to assume (absent an immediate correction) that he would likely play the heart Ace on this trick. I'd consider it reasonably likely that he would then lead SA simultaneously with South leading the H4 (he thinks he is on lead). Thus South makes 3 tricks. This is actually trickier if we make South's H4 the C4. Would anyone rule that East would notice the diamond before his actual turn to play and might then discard his black aces? Just as in the original case (absent the immediate correction) I can happily accept that declarer might revoke and establish the revoke. What I can't accept is that the revoke is anything other than a revoke from a faced hand and thus free from automatic penalty - the law admits no ambiguity on this particular point. What "might have happened" is open to all sorts of doubtful points but the facing of declarer's hand at trick ten is an unarguable fact. Try this one, spades trumps H2 lead. immaterial T9 immaterial 32 - - QJ AK - - "I will ruff the diamond, draw trumps and cash my hearts". Here I wish to assume South to ruff, play SQ and then HAK. West will win the last trick but no penalty tricks will be transferred. 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 Apr 20 18:00:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K800E25560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:00:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3K7xnt25547 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:59:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-109.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.109]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3K7xjn00257 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:59:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADEC8C4.202D448A@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:15:16 +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] L16C after a non-established revoke References: <3.0.6.32.20010418123015.00827150@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3ADD993C.33462020@village.uunet.be> <002a01c0c8b1$58fcc120$925d073e@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: > > One wonders what was actually made of this ruling at the time. As Roger > has correctly pointed out, ducking the king of clubs allows the contract > to make, while winning it and playing a heart defeats the contract. Did > East really continue to insist that he ought to be allowed to duck the > king of clubs because of AI available to him? Did North really continue > to insist that East ought to win it, despite the fact that a heart play > would then be totally obvious? Did the director and the appeals > committee really not work out the end position? Did this really happen > in the Belgium whose team reached the knock-out stages of the last > Olympiad? It is all very mysterious, and I suspect Herman is having some > joke with us. > I am not, and the only thing I can imagine is that I have written down the cards from memory - and I am fairly certain of most of them. One member of the list can shed more light on this - Paul ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 18:00:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K7xsp25556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:59:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3K7xkt25545 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:59:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-109.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.109]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3K7xfn00182 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:59:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADEC816.715D6AD1@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:12:22 +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] claiming a revoke References: <003001c0c8b3$1bdc56a0$925d073e@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am beginning to believe I belong more in the Davids's camp than in Grattan's, if David correctly attributes Grattan's point of view : David Burn wrote: > > Todd wrote: > > > Herman believes, or at least appears to, as do I, that a claim > statement > > breaks down at a revoke. > > As, apparently, do Grattan and Kojak. But why should a claim statement > break down at a point where it can still be followed? If a claim > statement includes something that it is impossible for declarer to do, > then by all means treat it as though it has broken down (and you > lily-livered milksops can then award "normal" numbers of tricks to > declarer, while I will give him only legally unavoidable tricks). But it > is not impossible for declarer to revoke, or to lead from the wrong > hand - and if he claims that he will do any of these things, then let > the defenders derive the benefit that they would have derived had he > actually done them. > I agree with David. If it is possible that this declarer will in actual fact revoke, then certainly two tricks should be subtraccted from his final tally. I happen to believe that it is impossible for this declarer to actually do this, despite what he has stated, and I urge both David's to be a bit more sympathetic to this possibility, but I absolutely agree with them that in case of doubt, this declarer shall be treated as if he has revoked. This case would apparently have been far more interesting if there had been some doubt (at least in my mind). > Now, that is equitable, and anything else is not. To justify it, we use > Law 70A (as DWS points out). But (as Grattan says) there may be no legal > justification for applying to the adjudication of a claim the Laws that > would apply to actual play, for there is no actual play. An impasse > appears to have been reached, and I am not sure that it can be resolved > without clarification of or changes to Law. We have a pronouncement from > the Secretary of the WBF Laws Commission as to what the Law actually is, > and his opinion is endorsed by the WBF Chief Tournament Director. That > ought to be enough. > David ascribes to Grattan and Ton a very peculiar type of argument. I would like to see this confirmed, and I offer an example and ask Ton to rule : AQT86 AK3 43 AQ2 KJ975 54 AK2 K3 Declarer, in six spades, claims 13 tricks after a trump lead. The claim is obviously valid, except for one small thing : the 2 of hearts which is lying under declarer's chair. What is the ruling ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 18:00:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K802R25565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:00:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3K7xpt25552 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:59:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-109.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.109]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3K7xln00279 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:59:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADECA1E.67856379@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:21:02 +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] claiming a revoke; was Re: [BLML] Deleting 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: > > > There does not need to be a specific provision. The wording of L70A > is clear enough and we are merely following it. Ok, some of us are, the > rest are giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimer in defiance of > L70A. > No David, some of us are of the opinion that it is possible that in the actual case, the TD has no doubt left. Mind you, I am not saying that I am not in doubt, but that is because I do not have first hand information. But I can, from what I have read, imagine that I could be in a position wherein I have no doubt whatsoever that this declarer would notice in time. When there is no doubt, I should not be ruling by "benefit of the doubt", should I ? There are two separate positions here, David. If I were asked to give a ruling, based on the information that I was given, I might well rule as you do. or rather, I would try and gather more information in order to lose the remaining pieces of doubt. But we are not asked to give a ruling, we are asked for comments. My comment is that, at the table, I would probably have no doubt left and feel free to award this claimer three tricks. If you are of the opinion that such a removal of all doubt is impossible, then you are a worse director that I thought you were. Some people have said that you need mind reading to actually rule this. I agree, and I believe that the best directors are in fact mind readers. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 18:36:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K8aBr25596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:36:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3K8a5t25592 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:36:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.10.214]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010420083601.RCVV285.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:36:01 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:37:53 +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: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 7:02 PM Subject: [BLML] claiming out of turn > > 2 > 2 > 32 > void > > 3 void > void JT9 > KQJ A > Void void > > Void > AKQ > T > void > > The contract is NT, lead is in the south [declarer]. Declarer calls > for dummy's spade, played. RHO is scratching his head for a few > seconds and declarer then says 'I have the rest, taking three hearts.' > > W feels he is entitled to the rest by his partner unblocking the D ace > on the spade. However a claim of the last four tricks has occurred and > no one has yet accepted the LOOT. > > A lot of clarification of the law has taken place recently. So, In > strict accordance with law, what is the adjudication? And does it > seem right, irrespective of the law? > > As an added dimension, according to the clarification, claimer was to > pitch the diamond on the spade for T10. Must the adjudication in > this case call for the lead of the diamond at T10? > Some time ago, I suggested that Law 68 applies only to tricks other that the trick in progress. I was rapidly jumped upon, from a great height, by most if this group :-) Now convinced that Law 68 does apply to the trick in progress, I am happy to rule this claim from the play of the two of spades. We do not know why East is cogitating. He may be wondering whether or not to accept the lead from the wrong hand, or he may be wondering whether to pitch the AD, or whether to pitch a heart. Either defender could have accepted the lead from the wrong hand, Law 55, and in saying that he is going to win this trick with the 3S West has done so, albeit after play ceased. Declarers claim is flawed, as the rest of the tricks are not his. I am going to rule that after the play of the 2S, when declarer has faced his cards, East will get the pitch right without West's help, so I award all four remaining tricks to the defending side.Law 70. 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 Apr 20 19:40:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K9cNn17211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:38:23 +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-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 f3K9cDt17197 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:38:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-122.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.122]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3K9c8q26771 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:38:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADFF5B0.F65FC125@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:39:12 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104101410.KAA29252@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002701c0c2a1$bd1afe80$1c10f7a5@james> <004b01c0c910$d7ee1ce0$0213f7a5@james> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > What earthly point is there in discussing that? > > Ok, I agree, if there is no real chance that a player would revoke if > he played the hand out then we would not assume he had revoked via a > claim. > > But it still does not answer what you do when you believe that a > player would have revoked and it become established if he had played the > hand out. > > >Go ahead, show me I'm wrong if you are able...but please do not > >take my argument on a point of applying the law to be a cheap > >shot at your abilities. Neither of us deserve that. > > I find your reaction surprising, and feel you totally misunderstood > the tenor of my remarks. > Well sorry David, but I too misunderstood your position. I agree with you that there are some people out there that are under the misguided perception that there can be no revokes within a claim. However, please accept the following as an explanation for our misconception : at no time during this thread did you state what you did above - you always seemed to be saying that this player should revoke because he said he would. I now realize that this is not your position at all. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 19:40:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K9cT617213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:38:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3K9cIt17204 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:38:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-122.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.122]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3K9cFq26829 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:38:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADFF7FE.B80EBB68@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:49:02 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104191259.NAA02636@tempest.npl.co.uk> <007001c0c8d4$467ea220$72de7ad5@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: > > I wrote a load of rubbish, because I accidentally deleted a couple of > sentences before hitting the Send button. > > > It was not my intention that declarer believes that D2 is a winner: > > the claim statement ended "... and losing a diamond". > > Quite right. What I meant to write was: > > Even if this line of reasoning is not acceptable (and I know that to > many, it is not), there remains this consideration. Suppose that instead > of conceding the last trick, declarer attempted to claim all the tricks > on the basis that his diamond was good. Declarer believes that D2 is a > winner; there is no evidence as to his belief about H2, but it seems > reasonable to assume that he does not know its status. Now, if we are > going to allow him to "wake up" at some point to the fact that the > second spade will be taken in the dummy, why should we not say that this > point will occur *before* he leads S2 to trick 12? In that case, he will > obviously attempt to cash D2 at trick 12, and not at trick 13 - result: > two tricks to West. > Same change here. But with "three tricks to west". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 19:40:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K9cRl17212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:38:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3K9cGt17199 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:38:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-122.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.122]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3K9cCq26815 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:38:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3ADFF78A.36E39F93@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:47:06 +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] claiming a revoke References: <200104191052.LAA02608@tempest.npl.co.uk> <004901c0c8cd$20a97040$72de7ad5@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: > > Robin wrote: > > > Can I pursue claims that include leading from the wrong hand. > > > > In this three card ending at NT, South is in hand and claims: > > "I will play in order SA S2 D2 winning two spades and losing > > a diamond". > > > > S 43 > > H 2 > > D AKQ > > C AKQ > > S A2 > > D 2 > > > > North objects, saying that dummy will win the last two tricks. > > The defence want the benefit of South's LOOT at trick 13. > > > > Some contributors to this thread would give the defence a trick. > > In the three-card ending above, declarer leads SA, then S2, then > attempts to lead D2 from his hand. Law 55A permits the defenders to > accept this lead, so West makes a trick. Why does the defence lose its > right under L55 because declarer has claimed instead of playing? Of > course the defence gets a trick - in fact, if declarer were Herman, I > would give the defence two tricks (see below). > > Here, I imagine Herman would say that the claim statement has "broken > down" because declarer cannot lead D2 from his hand to trick 13, since > he is in dummy. But, since in actual play he obviously could lead D2 > from his hand despite being in dummy, the claim should be adjudicated on > the basis that this is what he would do. Again, Herman would say that in > reality, declarer would notice at the end of trick 12 that he was in > dummy and not in his hand. But on what basis do we assert that a > declarer who has not noticed in which hand he will win trick 12 would in > reality notice in which hand he did win trick 12? > > Even if this line of reasoning is not acceptable (and I know that to > many, it is not), there remains this consideration. Declarer believes > that D2 is a winner; there is no evidence as to his belief about H2, but > it seems reasonable to assume that he does not know its status. Now, if > we are going to allow him to "wake up" at some point to the fact that > the second spade will be taken in the dummy, why should we not say that > this point will occur *before* he leads S2 to trick 12? In that case, he > will obviously attempt to cash D2 at trick 12, and not at trick 13 - > result: two tricks to West. > > David Burn > London, England > I am in disagreement with David in this solution. Nothing new, you say, well : just see : I rule three tricks to defence. Yes defence ! Indeed, the stated line breaks down once declarer notices that it cannot be followed, and all normal lines must be taken. We should decide on doubtful facts against claimer and in this case, that means he notices the line breaks down as early as possible. After the line breaks down, all normal lines become available, and for this declarer, that obviously means that he cashes the D2 before the ace of hearts. Who said I am lenient towards sloppy claims ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 20 19:51:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3K9lpf17243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:47:51 +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 f3K9lit17239 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:47:45 +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 LAA20999; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:44:03 +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 LAA00676; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:47:15 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010420115048.0082a9a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:50:48 +0200 To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn 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 13:02 19/04/01 -0500, Roger Pewick wrote: > > 2 > 2 > 32 > void > >3 void >void JT9 >KQJ A >Void void > > Void > AKQ > T > void > >The contract is NT, lead is in the south [declarer]. Declarer calls >for dummy's spade, played. RHO is scratching his head for a few >seconds and declarer then says 'I have the rest, taking three hearts.' > >W feels he is entitled to the rest by his partner unblocking the D ace >on the spade. However a claim of the last four tricks has occurred and >no one has yet accepted the LOOT. AG : South has to table his cards. Nobody has accepted or disallowed the play of the S2 yet. No doubt, when seeing the remaining cards, either East will realise it is in his interest to accept the lead and perform the Emperor's coup. Or else, West will hurry to accept the LOOT, and East will now scratch his head a few seconds more, and find the right play. It is quite obvious that one should adjudicate 4 tricks to E/W. Regards, Alain -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 21 08:06:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3KM5Vb11545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:05:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3KM5Ot11500 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:05:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3KM6PV20423 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <016c01c0c9e5$fcec1d00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] A new principle? Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:00:32 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk While browsing thru some NABC casebooks, I came across a comment by Ron Gerard in relation to San Antonio NABC case 20: "... it is the Committee's or Panel's job to make each side's best arguments for them based on the facts presented. That way, admissions against interest are treated just as irrelevant as self-serving statements, bridge lawyering is not rewarded, and failure to engage in bridge lawyering is not punished." And taking a player away from the table when it's too late to change a call would be even more inappropriate. I don't remember seeing this principle before, but I like it. What does BLML think of it? Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 21 10:24:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3L0OJR00596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:24:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3L0OCt00551 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:24:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.8.112]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010421002408.JRNM285.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:24:08 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c0c9f9$aaa5b4c0$7008ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <016c01c0c9e5$fcec1d00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A new principle? Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:26:09 +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, April 20, 2001 11:00 PM Subject: [BLML] A new principle? > While browsing thru some NABC casebooks, I came across a comment by > Ron Gerard in relation to San Antonio NABC case 20: > > "... it is the Committee's or Panel's job to make each side's best > arguments for them based on the facts presented. That way, > admissions against interest are treated just as irrelevant as > self-serving statements, bridge lawyering is not rewarded, and > failure to engage in bridge lawyering is not punished." > I agree 100% with this. All too often a player who is eloquent,even if not a BL, will gain at appeal. The less eloquent will fail. That is a shame. I believe, as did Mr Gerard, that it is the duty of the AC to sift through the evidence - and what players say is evidence - and to do it's best for both sides. A fair result should ensue. > > And taking a player away from the table when it's too late to change > a call would be even more inappropriate. > This might apply in some circumstances, and would be correct. I would not wish to deprive the TD of the opportunity to gain information at an early atage, should he have to rule later. > > I don't remember seeing this principle before, but I like it. What > does BLML think of it? > 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 Apr 21 20:19:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3LAI0T08421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:18:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3LAHpt08412 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:17:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-56-46.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.56.46]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3LAHbH14104 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:17:38 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <004701c0ca4c$3b2e7700$2e387bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <003001c0c8b3$1bdc56a0$925d073e@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:33:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Change in a trice The lilies and languors of virtue For the raptures and roses of vice. " (Swinburne) + + + ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke > you lily-livered milksops _ _ _ > +=+ LL.M..... letters that may be worn proudly not only by Kaplan and Endicott who, in a past era of harmonious accommodations, agreed the policy, but also by the balance of the committee that endorsed it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 21 20:19:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3LAHvB08418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:17:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3LAHkt08406 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:17:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-56-46.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.56.46]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3LAHLH13939; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:17:21 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <004601c0ca4c$317d62c0$2e387bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" References: <016c01c0c9e5$fcec1d00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000701c0c9f9$aaa5b4c0$7008ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] A new principle? Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:01:35 +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 "Real education must ultimately be limited to one who INSISTS on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding." - Ezra Pound. + + + ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 1:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A new principle? > > I agree 100% with this. All too often a player > who is eloquent,even if not a BL, will gain at > appeal. The less eloquent will fail. That is a > shame. I believe, as did Mr Gerard, that it is > the duty of the AC to sift through the evidence > - and what players say is evidence - and to do > it's best for both sides. A fair result should ensue. > > > > And taking a player away from the table when > > it's too late to change a call would be even > > more inappropriate. > > > This might apply in some circumstances, and > would be correct. I would not wish to deprive the > TD of the opportunity to gain information at an > early atage, should he have to rule later. > > +=+ Clarification of these statements is needed. It is not the role of the Director or the AC to introduce on behalf of a player thinking that has not occurred to the player himself, and would not influence that player's actions. Often enough the AC has to identify 'added material' that was not in the player's mind at the table and when the Director ascertained facts, but has been thought of (or suggested to the player) in the interval until the AC hears the appeal. ~ 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 Apr 21 22:46:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3LCk6J12435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 22:46:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3LCjxt12427 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 22:45:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f3LCjoP11160 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:45:50 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:45 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A new principle? 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: <016c01c0c9e5$fcec1d00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > "... it is the Committee's or Panel's job to make each side's best > arguments for them based on the facts presented. That way, > admissions against interest are treated just as irrelevant as > self-serving statements, bridge lawyering is not rewarded, and > failure to engage in bridge lawyering is not punished." > > I don't remember seeing this principle before, but I like it. What > does BLML think of it? Personally I despise it. "Self-serving" statements are not irrelevant and should never be implied to be so. They are pieces of information to be considered, without being given undue weight, along with all other facts in making a judgement. I cannot see why "admissions against interest" would be any different. 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 Apr 21 23:00:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3LD0be12959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:00:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3LD0Tt12948 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:00:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-233.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.233]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3LD0Nq01533 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 15:00:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AE1671B.BACBEAD4@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:55:23 +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] another non-established revoke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What is it with the Belgians this week ? I get called to a table where someone has just revoked. No problem, you might say, but yes : After the revoke, a kibitzer had hit the player, thus making him realize about the revoke. I ruled that the revoke had been non-established, ordered it changed, applied the penalty card, and at the end gave a penalty trick nevertheless. Well, in actual fact I awarded an adjusted score based on a penalty trick for an established revoke. There had been no question that the kibitzer was "of revokers resposability" He was from the same team and had been sitting next to this same player for some rounds. This is a very strange rule : the revoke must be corrected, and afterwards there are penalties as well. Grattan, would it not be better in the future laws to put that revokes become established when the attention of the revoker has been drawn to it by illegal means (partner in Europe - responsible kibitzer); of course when it is an opponent's kibitzer who notices the revoke, it should remain non-established and not penalized. Such a law would be far easier to apply ! Funny anecdote : the kibitzer said to me "you won't send me away, will you ?" To which I replied : "I won't, but he might !" (the revoker). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 22 01:48:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3LFlhL01318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 01:47:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3LFlYt01307 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 01:47:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id A83F3D7CB1 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:47:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:47:26 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f3LFlbt01311 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Point-a-board events are used very rarely in Denmark, and the DBF's regulations say nothing about them. But a Danish club has just had such an event; they had not defined previously what an A+/A- score would be, and it turned out that they needed such a score. They've now asked the DBF for help in assigning it. And if there is a norm that is generally followed in parts of the world where point-a-board is often used, I would like to recommend following that norm. So which scores do you assign as A+/A-, assuming a scoring where a win is 2-0, and if you round the resulting score, how do you do that? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 22 04:55:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3LIssG14402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 04:54:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3LIskt14359 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 04:54:47 +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 KAA28924 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:04:59 -0800 Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:52:35 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? 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 Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > Point-a-board events are used very rarely in Denmark, and the DBF's > regulations say nothing about them. They have become very rare in North America, and I think it is a shame. I've been a lone voice in the woods trying to get a 2- or 4-session BAM team game scheduled at a regional in my area... > But a Danish club has just had such an event; they had not defined > previously what an A+/A- score would be, and it turned out that they > needed such a score. In ACBL A+ is 0.6 (1.2) or session score, whichever is better, as usual. A difference of 0.01 breaks a tie as in any other event. In other words these events are treated just as if they are matchpoint events (which, really, they are; this becomes painfully obvious if you live somewhere where you can expect to play a 2 1/2 table Howell weekly most of the winter.) I am inclined to think the laws don't give you any choice about assigning 1.2 and 0.8, and that whatever DBF-wide regulation about tiebreaking is already in force applies. Yes, it's a little peculiar that awarding one A+ is the same as "awarding a full board but you lose ties", but no more peculiar than the things that happen with matchpoint rankings after fouled boards. Now, if you'd asked how to handle an *assigned* adjusted score, we'd *really* be in hot water. I can think of a few different ways to do that, some more legal than others, some (that players will think are) fairer or more equitable than others. I can't think of too many precedents in this country, just because of the lack of events. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 22 20:41:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3MAdLs28528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:39:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3MAdEt28524 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:39:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-59-251.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.59.251] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3MAd3H12529 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:39:03 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000901c0cb18$64a59240$fb3b7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3AE1671B.BACBEAD4@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] another non-established revoke Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:37:54 +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 "La croyance au progres est une doctrine de paresseux, une doctrine de Belges. C'est l'individu qui compte sur ses voisins pour fair sa besogne." [Charles Baudelaire] + + + + ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 11:55 AM Subject: [BLML] another non-established revoke > What is it with the Belgians this week ? > +=+ Now, Herman! Be cautious when you start to offer invitations..... +=+ --------- \x/ --------- > > After the revoke, a kibitzer had hit the player, thus making > him realize about the revoke. > +=+ Immoral support? Really *hit*? Nudged, poked, prodded maybe? +=+ > I ruled that the revoke had been non-established, ordered it > changed, applied the penalty card, and at the end gave a > penalty trick nevertheless. > > Well, in actual fact I awarded an adjusted score based on a > penalty trick for an established revoke. > > There had been no question that the kibitzer was "of > revokers resposability" He was from the same team and had > been sitting next to this same player for some rounds. > +=+ Having previously watched at the other table in the match? +=+ > > This is a very strange rule : the revoke must be corrected, > and afterwards there are penalties as well. > +=+ Is that what Law 11B2 says? +=+ > > Grattan, would it not be better in the future laws to put > that revokes become established when the attention of the > revoker has been drawn to it by illegal means (partner in > Europe - responsible kibitzer); of course when it is an > opponent's kibitzer who notices the revoke, it should remain > non-established and not penalized. > Such a law would be far easier to apply ! > +=+ Have you read 11B2? And as for partner, so far the WBF Laws Committee has not renewed its consideration of an addition to Law 63A of a proposed subsection reading: "When the partner of the revoker (or a spectator to whom Law 11C2 applies) draws attention to the revoke in a manner contrary to the provisions of these Laws." [The minute said that the proposal should be kept "for possible future implementation, the sense of the Committee being that it should have made such a provision when writing the 1987 Laws". But the minute was shunted when writing the 1997 Laws. The drafting committee was having some difficulty with a minute from Ocho Rios that read "It had previously been decided by this Committee, and approved by the Executive Council, that 'as far as possible the new laws would be exactly the same. That there would be no differences in the publications of the various copyright holders, Laws Commissions, or of Zonal or National Bridge Organizations'."] As an interim measure the Committee did introduce an addition to 63A that said: < "When there has been a violation of Law 61B" > but this was changed when the 1997 Laws were drafted. +=+ > > > Funny anecdote : the kibitzer said to me "you won't send me > away, will you ?" To which I replied : "I won't, but he > might !" (the revoker). > +=+ Yeah...." funny..." ~ 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 Apr 23 22:12:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NCAVP29864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:10:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3NCALt29816 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:10:23 +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 OAA24086; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:06:39 +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 OAA16584; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:09:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010423141328.0082cb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:13:28 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A new principle? In-Reply-To: <016c01c0c9e5$fcec1d00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:00 20/04/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >While browsing thru some NABC casebooks, I came across a comment by >Ron Gerard in relation to San Antonio NABC case 20: > >"... it is the Committee's or Panel's job to make each side's best >arguments for them based on the facts presented. That way, >admissions against interest are treated just as irrelevant as >self-serving statements, bridge lawyering is not rewarded, and >failure to engage in bridge lawyering is not punished." >I don't remember seeing this principle before, but I like it. What >does BLML think of it? AG : I don't agree to the idea of discarding "admissions against interest". If, for example, a pair admitted there was MI (rather than misbid), it makes their case worse, but undoubtedly it should be taken as evidence. Making the OS's best arguments would mean trying to prove misbid rather than MI, which clearly goes against jurisprudency. Another example : E/W state that it was N/S that took too much time, causing delay in the completion of the round, and if N/S admit it openly, who are we to argue ? Regards, Alain. >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 Mon Apr 23 22:15:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NCF1t01436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:15:01 +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 f3NCErt01390 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:14:54 +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 OAA05695; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:14:48 +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 OAA20172; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:14:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010423141801.00837d40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:18:01 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] another non-established revoke In-Reply-To: <3AE1671B.BACBEAD4@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 12:55 21/04/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >After the revoke, a kibitzer had hit the player, thus making >him realize about the revoke. > >I ruled that the revoke had been non-established, ordered it >changed, applied the penalty card, and at the end gave a >penalty trick nevertheless. > >Well, in actual fact I awarded an adjusted score based on a >penalty trick for an established revoke. > >There had been no question that the kibitzer was "of >revokers resposability" He was from the same team and had >been sitting next to this same player for some rounds. > >This is a very strange rule : the revoke must be corrected, >and afterwards there are penalties as well. AG : I vaguely recall that we discussed this case between TDs, and that the conclusion was that the revoke instantly became established, just as if (defender's) partner had enquired about the revoke. And faily so, because the two cases are very similar. Being established, the revoke must not be corrected, but the fact that the card was a revoke is AI to the NOS. Regards, Alain -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 23 22:16:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NCGU101956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:16:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3NCGNt01922 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:16:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-182.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.182]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3NCGGn24573 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:16:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AE3E9F6.976BF2BC@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:38:14 +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] another non-established revoke References: <3AE1671B.BACBEAD4@village.uunet.be> <000901c0cb18$64a59240$fb3b7bd5@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott <=> > "La croyance au progres est une doctrine > de paresseux, une doctrine de Belges. C'est > l'individu qui compte sur ses voisins pour > fair sa besogne." [Charles Baudelaire] > + + + + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 11:55 AM > Subject: [BLML] another non-established revoke > > > What is it with the Belgians this week ? > > > +=+ Now, Herman! Be cautious when you start to offer > invitations..... +=+ > --------- \x/ --------- > > > > After the revoke, a kibitzer had hit the player, thus making > > him realize about the revoke. > > > +=+ Immoral support? Really *hit*? > Nudged, poked, prodded maybe? +=+ > nudge, nudge, say no more. > > I ruled that the revoke had been non-established, ordered it > > changed, applied the penalty card, and at the end gave a > > penalty trick nevertheless. > > > > Well, in actual fact I awarded an adjusted score based on a > > penalty trick for an established revoke. > > > > There had been no question that the kibitzer was "of > > revokers resposability" He was from the same team and had > > been sitting next to this same player for some rounds. > > > +=+ Having previously watched at the other table in the > match? +=+ no, for the previous match with the same player. > > > > This is a very strange rule : the revoke must be corrected, > > and afterwards there are penalties as well. > > > +=+ Is that what Law 11B2 says? +=+ No, it's what L62A says. not yet having replaced my lawbook lost in Sorrento, I can only guess at the original, but L11B2 talks of a right that may disappear, while L62A speaks of a duty. The obligation that the non-established revoke must be corrected is not a right, so it cannot disappear by L11. > > > > Grattan, would it not be better in the future laws to put > > that revokes become established when the attention of the > > revoker has been drawn to it by illegal means (partner in > > Europe - responsible kibitzer); of course when it is an > > opponent's kibitzer who notices the revoke, it should remain > > non-established and not penalized. > > Such a law would be far easier to apply ! > > > +=+ Have you read 11B2? And as for partner, so far the > WBF Laws Committee has not renewed its consideration of > an addition to Law 63A of a proposed subsection reading: > "When the partner of the revoker (or a spectator to > whom Law 11C2 applies) draws attention to the revoke in a > manner contrary to the provisions of these Laws." > > [The minute said that the proposal should be kept "for > possible future implementation, the sense of the > Committee being that it should have made such a > provision when writing the 1987 Laws". But the minute > was shunted when writing the 1997 Laws. The drafting > committee was having some difficulty with a minute > from Ocho Rios that read "It had previously been decided > by this Committee, and approved by the Executive Council, > that 'as far as possible the new laws would be exactly the > same. That there would be no differences in the publications > of the various copyright holders, Laws Commissions, or of > Zonal or National Bridge Organizations'."] > I understand that - if the obligations for partners are not the same accross the zones, the penalties for breaking those obligations should be minimal. > As an interim measure the Committee did introduce > an addition to 63A that said: < "When there has been a > violation of Law 61B" > but this was changed when the > 1997 Laws were drafted. +=+ > > Anyway, it seems as if we've discovered another small flaw in the Laws. On for 3 months discussion as to the actual solution to this 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 Mon Apr 23 22:16:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NCGew02005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:16:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3NCGTt01953 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:16:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-182.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.182]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3NCGPn24888 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:16:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AE3EA53.B88227AF@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:39:47 +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] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > I am inclined to think the laws don't give you any choice about assigning > 1.2 and 0.8, and that whatever DBF-wide regulation about tiebreaking is > already in force applies. Yes, it's a little peculiar that awarding one A+ > is the same as "awarding a full board but you lose ties", but no more > peculiar than the things that happen with matchpoint rankings after fouled > boards. > Well, just say that it is "awarding a half board but you win ties". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 23 22:48:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NCm7K12980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:48:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3NClwt12931 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:47:59 +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 OAA12890; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:47:54 +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 OAA18461; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:47:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:51:06 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, I can't resist showing you another case where I think the TD did erroneously wash his hands from the whole thing. Since it appeared in a weekly, very minor, event, nobody thought it worth lodging an appeal, but I feel there should have been one (or two ?). Matchpoints, none vul. E/W are a well-fitted pair. W E x QJxx Axx xxx Qxxxx Kx Qxxx J10xx E/W play dutch twos (6-11 HCP, 5 in bid major, 4+ in minor). But 3rd hand NV it could be 4 major + 4 minor, or 52 majors, 33 minors. The convention is allowed at that level (known suit and all that sort of things). pass pass 2S* double 3C* pass pass pass N/S are cold for 4S (or possibly 3NT, although 4S was the popular contract). West, forgetting either his system or the fact that he had already passed, explained 2S as 5 spades, 4+ minor. Also, he answered 3C, which after his pass should have been fit-showing (typically 5C/3S), while he thought it was P/C (which it would be without the initial pass). East explained 3C as fit-showing. Those differences were corroborated by E/W's system notes, which they always keep within reach. So, the following facts are established : 1) There was MI about East's opening. 2) There was no MI about the response. 3) N/S could have made 4S. 4) With his 5-card spade suit North couldn't bid anything, because the bidding implied that all remaining spades were EW's (and also because he thought he would have time to double 3S when it came back). 5) East's pass of 3C doesn't sound like he fielded partner's error. It's normal to try and play in the presumed 54 club fit, rather than the 43 or 44 in spades, given that it's not their hand. N/S didn't agree with the fact that the MI caused the loss of NS's game. Even given the right information, they pretend, that is : 4 spades with East (and, remember, 3 with West, which is the right explanation), the problem would have been the same for them. That neither North, with 5 spades and a 9-count, nor South, who had already bid once on a flat 16 count, could not bid again is plain unlucky. Faced with this intricated case, the TD decide ... guess what ? He gave 40/60. Suppose you are on the AC. What do you decide ? Yes, Herman, I know West wasn't paying full attention to the game. He usually doesn't. But, as can be collected from previous mails, 40/60 can't be the right ruling (in Europe, at least). What would be ? Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 23 23:27:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NDQqJ13727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:26:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3NDQjt13723 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:26:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id A433DD7CB1 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:26:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:26:41 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f3NDQmt13724 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:52:35 -0800 (AKDT), Gordon Bower wrote: >On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> Point-a-board events are used very rarely in Denmark, and the DBF's >> regulations say nothing about them. > >They have become very rare in North America, and I think it is a >shame. I've been a lone voice in the woods trying to get a 2- or 4-session >BAM team game scheduled at a regional in my area... > >> But a Danish club has just had such an event; they had not defined >> previously what an A+/A- score would be, and it turned out that they >> needed such a score. > >In ACBL A+ is 0.6 (1.2) or session score, whichever is better, as usual. A >difference of 0.01 breaks a tie as in any other event. In other words >these events are treated just as if they are matchpoint events (which, >really, they are; this becomes painfully obvious if you live somewhere >where you can expect to play a 2 1/2 table Howell weekly most of the >winter.) Thanks. I was under the obviously mistaken impression that point-a-board was quite normal in NA, but that impression was formed long ago. >I am inclined to think the laws don't give you any choice about assigning >1.2 and 0.8, and that whatever DBF-wide regulation about tiebreaking is >already in force applies. The laws (L12 and L88) have specific rules for pairs and individual events. Though the scoring of a point-a-board match is very much like a two-table pairs, it is not a pairs event, and I therefore do not agree that the laws require treating it as a pairs event. Nevertheless, the fact that you do so in NA sounds like a good reason to do so here as well. If we do follow the Danish rules for pairs events, the result will be 2-0, by the way, because we prescribe rounding away from average (if the same irregularity causes more than one artificial score, the rounding occurs after those scores have been added; for a one-board artificial score it would be 2-0). >Yes, it's a little peculiar that awarding one A+ >is the same as "awarding a full board but you lose ties", but no more >peculiar than the things that happen with matchpoint rankings after fouled >boards. I don't really see anything peculiar or unreasonable in any A+ score between 1.2 and 2. That is what makes it difficult to choose. The only other information I have about what to do here is an approximately 12 years old copy of the EBU "Director's Guide", which prescribes 1.5-0.5 without rounding. Is that still the rule in the EBU? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 24 00:13:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NEDAi27158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:13:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3NED4t27130 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:13:04 +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 KAA19875 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:13:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA16835 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:13:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:13:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104231413.KAA16835@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Well, just say that it is "awarding a half board but you win > ties". The extra 0.1 could also come into play if there are fractional carryovers or factoring. > From: Jesper Dybdal > If we do follow the Danish rules for pairs events, the result > will be 2-0, by the way, because we prescribe rounding away from > average Let me make sure I understand this: if top is 24 (normal 13-round session, would correspond to top = 12 here in North America), 60% is 14.4, so you round to 15? Why do you want to round at all? I'm in no way hinting it's wrong, but I've never seen it before. (My experience is limited to ACBL games, I'm sorry to say.) > I don't really see anything peculiar or unreasonable in any A+ > score between 1.2 and 2. That is what makes it difficult to > choose. For one board, I don't think there is any strong reason for one score over another in the above range. What you might want to consider is how things add up if more than one artificial score is given. For example, if a pair scores avg+ on two boards, giving them 4.0 seems unduly generous. Giving them 2.4 rounded up to 3.0 (or possibly not even rounded) seems more reasonable to me. It seems simplest (to me, given my limited experience) to give the standard 1.2, and then at the end have some rule for rounding off fractions (if you like) and about the margin needed to have a distinct placement over the next pair. (The required margin is now 0.02 in North America; it used to be 1.0.) I don't see that the rules for team games have to be the same as the ones for pairs. Just some thoughts. I hope they are helpful. Good luck, and let us know what you decide. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 24 01:24:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NFOCu27236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 01:24:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3NFO5t27232 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 01:24:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id BC791D7CB1; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:24:02 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:24:02 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200104231413.KAA16835@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200104231413.KAA16835@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f3NFO8t27233 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:13:00 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> If we do follow the Danish rules for pairs events, the result >> will be 2-0, by the way, because we prescribe rounding away from >> average > >Let me make sure I understand this: if top is 24 (normal 13-round >session, would correspond to top = 12 here in North America), 60% is >14.4, so you round to 15? Yes. > Why do you want to round at all? Good question. We've rounded since long before I had anything to do with it. Probably originally in order to make it easier for hand calculations, later probably in order to avoid the hassle of getting computer software brought up to date. But almost definitely lazyness in some form. >I'm in no >way hinting it's wrong, but I've never seen it before. (My experience >is limited to ACBL games, I'm sorry to say.) The ACBL way is obviously better. >> I don't really see anything peculiar or unreasonable in any A+ >> score between 1.2 and 2. That is what makes it difficult to >> choose. > >For one board, I don't think there is any strong reason for one score >over another in the above range. What you might want to consider is >how things add up if more than one artificial score is given. For >example, if a pair scores avg+ on two boards, giving them 4.0 seems >unduly generous. Giving them 2.4 rounded up to 3.0 (or possibly not >even rounded) seems more reasonable to me. If we used the pairs rules, and the two boards were the result of the same irregularity, we would give +3. If they were results of different irregularities, we would give +4. Actually, it could be argued that +2 unconditionally is very much in accordance with the concept of point-a-board: that the side that does best on a individual board gets the full 2 points. Getting A+ while the opponents gets A- is "doing best". >It seems simplest (to me, given my limited experience) to give the >standard 1.2, and then at the end have some rule for rounding off >fractions (if you like) and about the margin needed to have a distinct >placement over the next pair. (The required margin is now 0.02 in >North America; it used to be 1.0.) A small margin is IMO preferable. It sounds to me as if the ACBL is doing it right. > I don't see that the rules for >team games have to be the same as the ones for pairs. > >Just some thoughts. I hope they are helpful. Good luck, and let us >know what you decide. Thanks. I will. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 24 07:45:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NLiog05014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 07:44:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3NLiit04983 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 07:44:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-13-26.easynet.co.uk [212.134.22.26]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id DEC7F22E659 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:44:34 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] another non-established revoke Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:41:45 +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: <3.0.6.32.20010423141801.00837d40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner (Mon 23 Apr 2001 13:18) writes: >AG : I vaguely recall that we discussed this case between TDs, and that the >conclusion was that the revoke instantly became established, just as if >(defender's) partner had enquired about the revoke. And faily so, because >the two cases are very similar. >Being established, the revoke must not be corrected, ... No, the revoke is *not* established, that is why it *must* be corrected, but the penalty provisions of L64 apply *as though it had been established* - see L63B. I agree with Hermann, this is a strange Law. I have had to apply it on several occasions and the results can be truly horrendous for the OS. 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 Tue Apr 24 08:04:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NM4BK11881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:04:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3NM44t11838 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:04:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NFFQc00613 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:15:26 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] A new principle? Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:11:57 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.6.32.20010423141328.0082cb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010423141328.0082cb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01042315152603.00563@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, alain gottcheiner wrote: > At 15:00 20/04/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >While browsing thru some NABC casebooks, I came across a comment by > >Ron Gerard in relation to San Antonio NABC case 20: > > > >"... it is the Committee's or Panel's job to make each side's best > >arguments for them based on the facts presented. That way, > >admissions against interest are treated just as irrelevant as > >self-serving statements, bridge lawyering is not rewarded, and > >failure to engage in bridge lawyering is not punished." > > >I don't remember seeing this principle before, but I like it. What > >does BLML think of it? > AG : I don't agree to the idea of discarding "admissions against interest". > If, for example, a pair admitted there was MI (rather than misbid), it > makes their case worse, but undoubtedly it should be taken as evidence. > Making the OS's best arguments would mean trying to prove misbid rather > than MI, which clearly goes against jurisprudency. > Another example : E/W state that it was N/S that took too much time, > causing delay in the completion of the round, and if N/S admit it openly, > who are we to argue ? And admissions against interest, like self-serving statrements, should still be considered. If South is misinformed, and passes out 4H when he might have bid 4S or doubled, South may say, "I wouldn't consider bidding on to 4S." The AC does not have to accept this, but if South said this even after knowing that 4S would have made for +420 while 4Hx would have gone down two for +300, the AC should be inclined to assume that this South would not have bid 4S even if he had been correctly informed. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 24 08:47:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NMka018202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:46:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3NMkTt18198 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:46:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-95-202.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.95.202]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3NMkJH27984; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:46:19 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002d01c0cc47$2995c780$ca5f063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: References: <3AE1671B.BACBEAD4@village.uunet.be> <000901c0cb18$64a59240$fb3b7bd5@dodona> <3AE3E9F6.976BF2BC@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] another non-established revoke Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:42:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott ".... the very name Florida carried the message of warmth and ease and comfort. It was irresistible." [John Steinbeck] + + + + ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] another non-established revoke > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > "La croyance au progres est une doctrine > > de paresseux, une doctrine de Belges. C'est > > l'individu qui compte sur ses voisins pour > > fair sa besogne." [Charles Baudelaire] > > + + + + > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Herman De Wael > > To: Bridge Laws > > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 11:55 AM > > Subject: [BLML] another non-established revoke > > > > > What is it with the Belgians this week ? > > > > > +=+ Now, Herman! Be cautious when you start to offer > > invitations..... +=+ > > --------- \x/ --------- > > > ---------------- \x/ ------------------ > > > I ruled that the revoke had been non-established, ordered it > > > changed, applied the penalty card, and at the end gave a > > > penalty trick nevertheless. > > > > > > Well, in actual fact I awarded an adjusted score based on a > > > penalty trick for an established revoke. > > > > > > There had been no question that the kibitzer was "of > > > revokers resposability" He was from the same team and had > > > been sitting next to this same player for some rounds. > > > -------------- \x/ ----------------- > > > > > > This is a very strange rule : the revoke must be corrected, > > > and afterwards there are penalties as well. > > > > > +=+ Is that what Law 11B2 says? +=+ > > No, it's what L62A says. > not yet having replaced my lawbook lost in Sorrento, I can > only guess at the original, but L11B2 talks of a right that > may disappear, while L62A speaks of a duty. > The obligation that the non-established revoke must be > corrected is not a right, so it cannot disappear by L11. > #### This is fair comment. What we have is an aim to prevent rectification when illegal attention is drawn by a kibitzer who is 'with the team' - but this aim is expressed in such feeble language that the Belgians, amongst others, can get away with the church silver. One to look at. #### > > > > > > Grattan, would it not be better in the future laws to put > > > that revokes become established when the attention of the > > > revoker has been drawn to it by illegal means ................. > > > Such a law would be far easier to apply ! > > > > > +=+ ..... so far the > > WBF Laws Committee has not renewed its consideration of > > an addition to Law 63A of a proposed subsection reading: > > "When the partner of the revoker (or a spectator to > > whom Law XXXX applies) draws attention to the revoke in a > > manner contrary to the provisions of these Laws." > > > > [The minute said that the proposal should be kept "for > > possible future implementation, the sense of the > > Committee being that it should have made such a > > provision when writing the 1987 Laws". But the minute > > was shunted when writing the 1997 Laws. The drafting > > committee was having some difficulty with a minute > > from Ocho Rios that read "It had previously been decided > > by this Committee, and approved by the Executive Council, > > that 'as far as possible the new laws would be exactly the > > same. That there would be no differences in the publications > > of the various copyright holders, Laws Commissions, or of > > Zonal or National Bridge Organizations'."] > > > > I understand that - if the obligations for partners are not > the same accross the zones, the penalties for breaking those > obligations should be minimal. > > > As an interim measure the Committee did introduce > > an addition to 63A that said: < "When there has been a > > violation of Law 61B" > but this was changed when the > > 1997 Laws were drafted. +=+ > > > -------------------- \x/ --------------------. > On for 3 months discussion as to the actual solution to this > problem. > #### Well, if blml wants to chatter away on the subject, so be it; but I am more interested in discussing the question in quarters where - should the case be persuasive - there is power to make a change. ~ 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 Apr 24 09:10:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NNARd23049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:10:27 +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 f3NNALt23045 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:10:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-98-254.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.98.254]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3NNABH15352; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:10:12 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000401c0cc4a$7f5384c0$fe62063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] another non-established revoke Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:02:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 very name Florida carried the message of warmth and ease and comfort. It was irresistible." [John Steinbeck] + + + + ----- Original Message ----- From: Brambledown To: BLML Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:41 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] another non-established revoke > alain gottcheiner (Mon 23 Apr 2001 13:18) writes: > >AG : I vaguely recall that we discussed this case > > between TDs, and that the conclusion was that > > the revoke instantly became established, just as if > >(defender's) partner had enquired about the revoke. > > And fairly so, because the two cases are very similar. > >Being established, the revoke must not be corrected, ... > > No, the revoke is *not* established, that is why it > *must* be corrected, but the penalty provisions of > L64 apply *as though it had been established* - > see L63B. > > I agree with Hermann, this is a strange Law. I have > had to apply it on several occasions and the results > can be truly horrendous for the OS. > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown). > +=+ Are we getting confused? Law 63B has no relevance to interventions by spectators. In the given circumstances the powers of the Director derive from Law 11, and are rather obscurely expressed. ~ 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 Apr 24 09:35:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3NNZMC23067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:35:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3NNZEt23063 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:35:16 +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 14rprL-000E9j-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:35:11 +0000 Message-ID: <4WMvZzAmkL56EwuG@asimere.com> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:22:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] another non-established revoke References: <3AE1671B.BACBEAD4@village.uunet.be> <000901c0cb18$64a59240$fb3b7bd5@dodona> <3AE3E9F6.976BF2BC@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AE3E9F6.976BF2BC@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 <3AE3E9F6.976BF2BC@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> Grattan Endicott> <=> >> "La croyance au progres est une doctrine >> de paresseux, une doctrine de Belges. C'est >> l'individu qui compte sur ses voisins pour >> fair sa besogne." [Charles Baudelaire] >> + + + + >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Herman De Wael >> To: Bridge Laws >> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 11:55 AM >> Subject: [BLML] another non-established revoke >> >> > What is it with the Belgians this week ? >> > >> +=+ Now, Herman! Be cautious when you start to offer >> invitations..... +=+ >> --------- \x/ --------- >> > >> > After the revoke, a kibitzer had hit the player, thus making >> > him realize about the revoke. >> > >> +=+ Immoral support? Really *hit*? >> Nudged, poked, prodded maybe? +=+ >> > >nudge, nudge, say no more. the Burn doctrine applies to the kibitzer. "Take him out and shoot him". This kibitzer is dead, is no more, fallen off his perch etc. As TD I'd correct the revoke as I think I have to (L62A), and adjust the score under Law 12A1 as if the revoke had occurred. cheers john > >> > I ruled that the revoke had been non-established, ordered it >> > changed, applied the penalty card, and at the end gave a >> > penalty trick nevertheless. >> > >> > Well, in actual fact I awarded an adjusted score based on a >> > penalty trick for an established revoke. >> > >> > There had been no question that the kibitzer was "of >> > revokers resposability" He was from the same team and had >> > been sitting next to this same player for some rounds. >> > >> +=+ Having previously watched at the other table in the >> match? +=+ > >no, for the previous match with the same player. > >> > >> > This is a very strange rule : the revoke must be corrected, >> > and afterwards there are penalties as well. >> > >> +=+ Is that what Law 11B2 says? +=+ > >No, it's what L62A says. >not yet having replaced my lawbook lost in Sorrento, I can >only guess at the original, but L11B2 talks of a right that >may disappear, while L62A speaks of a duty. >The obligation that the non-established revoke must be >corrected is not a right, so it cannot disappear by L11. > >> > >> > Grattan, would it not be better in the future laws to put >> > that revokes become established when the attention of the >> > revoker has been drawn to it by illegal means (partner in >> > Europe - responsible kibitzer); of course when it is an >> > opponent's kibitzer who notices the revoke, it should remain >> > non-established and not penalized. >> > Such a law would be far easier to apply ! >> > >> +=+ Have you read 11B2? And as for partner, so far the >> WBF Laws Committee has not renewed its consideration of >> an addition to Law 63A of a proposed subsection reading: >> "When the partner of the revoker (or a spectator to >> whom Law 11C2 applies) draws attention to the revoke in a >> manner contrary to the provisions of these Laws." >> >> [The minute said that the proposal should be kept "for >> possible future implementation, the sense of the >> Committee being that it should have made such a >> provision when writing the 1987 Laws". But the minute >> was shunted when writing the 1997 Laws. The drafting >> committee was having some difficulty with a minute >> from Ocho Rios that read "It had previously been decided >> by this Committee, and approved by the Executive Council, >> that 'as far as possible the new laws would be exactly the >> same. That there would be no differences in the publications >> of the various copyright holders, Laws Commissions, or of >> Zonal or National Bridge Organizations'."] >> > >I understand that - if the obligations for partners are not >the same accross the zones, the penalties for breaking those >obligations should be minimal. > >> As an interim measure the Committee did introduce >> an addition to 63A that said: < "When there has been a >> violation of Law 61B" > but this was changed when the >> 1997 Laws were drafted. +=+ >> > > >Anyway, it seems as if we've discovered another small flaw >in the Laws. >On for 3 months discussion as to the actual solution to this >problem. > -- 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 Apr 24 11:27:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3O1QV024240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:26:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3O1QHt24174 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:26:18 +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 14rrai-000I5G-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 01:26:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 01:02:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@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 > >I can't resist showing you another case where I think the TD did >erroneously wash his hands from the whole thing. >Since it appeared in a weekly, very minor, event, nobody thought it worth >lodging an appeal, but I feel there should have been one (or two ?). > >Matchpoints, none vul. >E/W are a well-fitted pair. > > W E > > x QJxx > Axx xxx > Qxxxx Kx > Qxxx J10xx > >E/W play dutch twos (6-11 HCP, 5 in bid major, 4+ in minor). But 3rd hand >NV it could be 4 major + 4 minor, or 52 majors, 33 minors. The convention >is allowed at that level (known suit and all that sort of things). > > pass pass 2S* double > 3C* pass pass pass > >N/S are cold for 4S (or possibly 3NT, although 4S was the popular contract). > >West, forgetting either his system or the fact that he had already passed, >explained 2S as 5 spades, 4+ minor. >Also, he answered 3C, which after his pass should have been fit-showing >(typically 5C/3S), while he thought it was P/C (which it would be without >the initial pass). East explained 3C as fit-showing. >Those differences were corroborated by E/W's system notes, which they >always keep within reach. > >So, the following facts are established : >1) There was MI about East's opening. >2) There was no MI about the response. >3) N/S could have made 4S. >4) With his 5-card spade suit North couldn't bid anything, because the >bidding implied that all remaining spades were EW's (and also because he >thought he would have time to double 3S when it came back). >5) East's pass of 3C doesn't sound like he fielded partner's error. It's >normal to try and play in the presumed 54 club fit, rather than the 43 or >44 in spades, given that it's not their hand. > >N/S didn't agree with the fact that the MI caused the loss of NS's game. >Even given the right information, they pretend, that is : 4 spades with >East (and, remember, 3 with West, which is the right explanation), the >problem would have been the same for them. That neither North, with 5 >spades and a 9-count, nor South, who had already bid once on a flat 16 >count, could not bid again is plain unlucky. > >Faced with this intricated case, the TD decide ... guess what ? >He gave 40/60. > >Suppose you are on the AC. What do you decide ? >Yes, Herman, I know West wasn't paying full attention to the game. He >usually doesn't. >But, as can be collected from previous mails, 40/60 can't be the right >ruling (in Europe, at least). >What would be ? This one looks so easy that I just *know* I am going to get it wrong! N/S have MI from East's bid, which could have been 4/4. But they have no MI from West's misbid, which was correctly described. There seems no reason I can immediately see why they would have bid differently if correctly informed about East's bid since North still "knows" E/W have a spade fit. So result stands. Of course you could give E/W a PP, but only if it was a very senior event [but we were told it wasn't] or if E/W make a habit of this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 24 11:27:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3O1QUp24236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:26:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3O1QGt24173 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:26:18 +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 14rrai-0006zR-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 01:26:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:55:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A new principle? References: <016c01c0c9e5$fcec1d00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <016c01c0c9e5$fcec1d00$ce9b1e18@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 >While browsing thru some NABC casebooks, I came across a comment by >Ron Gerard in relation to San Antonio NABC case 20: > >"... it is the Committee's or Panel's job to make each side's best >arguments for them based on the facts presented. That way, >admissions against interest are treated just as irrelevant as >self-serving statements, bridge lawyering is not rewarded, and >failure to engage in bridge lawyering is not punished." I think it is awful. Why bother with Committees at all if they are not to listen to the evidence? What is suggested here is to treat evidence as irrelevant. Of course, sensible Committees ascribe different weighting to different types of evidence - that's ok. And allowing the Committee to think is no bad thing. But treating some of the evidence as irrelevant is just 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 Tue Apr 24 11:27:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3O1QWa24245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:26:32 +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-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 f3O1QGt24172 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:26:18 +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 14rrai-0006zQ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 01:26:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:52:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? 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 Jesper Dybdal writes >The only other information I have about what to do here is an >approximately 12 years old copy of the EBU "Director's Guide", >which prescribes 1.5-0.5 without rounding. Is that still the >rule in the EBU? Yep, that's what it says in the White book. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 24 12:44:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3O2iHw04555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:44:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3O2iBt04551 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:44:11 +1000 (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 14rso8-000Pzi-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:44:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:29:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? 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 >Jesper Dybdal writes > >>The only other information I have about what to do here is an >>approximately 12 years old copy of the EBU "Director's Guide", >>which prescribes 1.5-0.5 without rounding. Is that still the >>rule in the EBU? > > Yep, that's what it says in the White book. > It's wrong of course. BAM is just a degenerate case of matchpoints and should be scored as 1.2 - 0.8 for A+/A-. Anything else is against L88. -- 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 Apr 24 12:45:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3O2jX804568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:45:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3O2jRt04564 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:45:28 +1000 (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 14rspQ-00004v-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:45:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:31:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> 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 >alain gottcheiner writes >> >>I can't resist showing you another case where I think the TD did >>erroneously wash his hands from the whole thing. >>Since it appeared in a weekly, very minor, event, nobody thought it worth >>lodging an appeal, but I feel there should have been one (or two ?). >> >>Matchpoints, none vul. >>E/W are a well-fitted pair. >> >> W E >> >> x QJxx >> Axx xxx >> Qxxxx Kx >> Qxxx J10xx >> >>E/W play dutch twos (6-11 HCP, 5 in bid major, 4+ in minor). But 3rd hand >>NV it could be 4 major + 4 minor, or 52 majors, 33 minors. The convention >>is allowed at that level (known suit and all that sort of things). >> >> pass pass 2S* double >> 3C* pass pass pass >> >>N/S are cold for 4S (or possibly 3NT, although 4S was the popular contract). >> >>West, forgetting either his system or the fact that he had already passed, >>explained 2S as 5 spades, 4+ minor. >>Also, he answered 3C, which after his pass should have been fit-showing >>(typically 5C/3S), while he thought it was P/C (which it would be without >>the initial pass). East explained 3C as fit-showing. >>Those differences were corroborated by E/W's system notes, which they >>always keep within reach. >> >>So, the following facts are established : >>1) There was MI about East's opening. >>2) There was no MI about the response. >>3) N/S could have made 4S. >>4) With his 5-card spade suit North couldn't bid anything, because the >>bidding implied that all remaining spades were EW's (and also because he >>thought he would have time to double 3S when it came back). >>5) East's pass of 3C doesn't sound like he fielded partner's error. It's >>normal to try and play in the presumed 54 club fit, rather than the 43 or >>44 in spades, given that it's not their hand. >> >>N/S didn't agree with the fact that the MI caused the loss of NS's game. >>Even given the right information, they pretend, that is : 4 spades with >>East (and, remember, 3 with West, which is the right explanation), the >>problem would have been the same for them. That neither North, with 5 >>spades and a 9-count, nor South, who had already bid once on a flat 16 >>count, could not bid again is plain unlucky. >> >>Faced with this intricated case, the TD decide ... guess what ? >>He gave 40/60. >> >>Suppose you are on the AC. What do you decide ? >>Yes, Herman, I know West wasn't paying full attention to the game. He >>usually doesn't. >>But, as can be collected from previous mails, 40/60 can't be the right >>ruling (in Europe, at least). >>What would be ? > > This one looks so easy that I just *know* I am going to get it wrong! > > N/S have MI from East's bid, which could have been 4/4. But they have >no MI from West's misbid, which was correctly described. There seems no >reason I can immediately see why they would have bid differently if >correctly informed about East's bid since North still "knows" E/W have a >spade fit. So result stands. > Of course David's wrong! He must be. I agree with him! > Of course you could give E/W a PP, but only if it was a very senior >event [but we were told it wasn't] or if E/W make a habit of this. > -- 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 Apr 24 14:20:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3O4Jtu04635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:19:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3O4Jmt04608 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:19:49 +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 TAA00845 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 19:30:04 -0800 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:17:32 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > It's wrong of course. BAM is just a degenerate case of matchpoints and > should be scored as 1.2 - 0.8 for A+/A-. Anything else is against L88. It does appear the laws are silent about how to handle adjustments in BAM teams these days. When I first replied, speculating that 1.2-0.8 was required, I was thinking of the words "a contestant" in the relevant laws, but I notice that the 60% bit does seem to be prefaced with a statement about pairs. The current Danish method which leads to an award of 2-0 turns out to have a historical case for it. Here is the relevant quote from the 1963 laws, when IMPs were a new thing: 102. Adjusted score in team play In team play, the Director should assign an adjusted score, if required by an irregularity for with one pair is at fault and the other innocent, provided the innocent pair's teammates have previously played the board and have obtained a favorable result. In such cases the Director should award to the innocent team: in match point play, the match point; in IMP or total-point play, the points it would probably have won if the irregularity had not occurred. The 1963 L107, Award of indemnity points, requires the 60-or-session-score in pairs and individual play just as it does today. Interesting that there was apparently no redress for the non-offending team if their teammates earned a seemingly bad result at the other table. So, it looks like there is precedent whichever method Jesper chooses to recommend to the club. The 1.5-0.5 solution sounds remarkably like a stopgap owing its existence entirely to hand scoring, and it bears a marked resemblence in spirit to the "old" ACBL way of scoring fouled MP boards which also avoided fractions. (The old way, incidentally, is still allowed in hand-scored games, though when I score by hand here I still work out the proper Neuberg fractions.) 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 Apr 24 17:28:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3O7RM508850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:27:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3O7RFt08846 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:27:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-86-85.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.86.85]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3O7QIH27088 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:26:18 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000901c0cc8f$cdab0220$5556063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <016c01c0c9e5$fcec1d00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A new principle? Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:25:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 To: Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 12:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A new principle? > I think it is awful. Why bother with Committees at all if they are > not to listen to the evidence? What is suggested here is to treat > evidence as irrelevant. > > Of course, sensible Committees ascribe different weighting to > different types of evidence - that's ok. And allowing the Committee to > think is no bad thing. But treating some of the evidence as irrelevant > is just wrong. > +=+ Paradoxically evidence may be given no hearing provided it has been carefully considered. ~ 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 Apr 24 19:07:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3O97Ik05823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:07:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3O97At05776 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:07:11 +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 f3O975C26150 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:07:06 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f3O974e01805 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:07:04 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:07:04 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 KAA03939 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:07:02 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA04333 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:07:02 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:07:02 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200104240907.KAA04333@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David replied to me: > >Perhaps we can consider the one card ending resulting from this claim: > > > > H 2 > >D A C A > > D 2 > > > >In NT, South concedes "losing a diamond" but the lead is in North. > >Before the correction period ends, N/S attempt to withdraw the > >concession and I (as TD) read L71A: > > "if a player has conceded ... a trick his side could not > > have lost by any LEGAL play of the remaining cards." > >and I give them the last trick. > > > >Wouldn't you? > > Yes, of course, but this is not a ruling under L70A. The principles > of L71 are different. Now I really don't understand. Lets try the two (or one-and-a-half) trick ending: S 4 H 2 D AK C AK S 3 D 2 South leads the S3 (at NT) and rather than playing from dummy, he faces D2 and claims "I will win this trick and lose the D2". If North/South now try to claim trick 13, you will rule as a claim under L70 and give a diamond to EW because South might have lead from the wrong hand at trick 13. However, if North/South call the TD later and wish to withdraw their concession of trick 13, you will rule as L71A and give a heart trick to NS. 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 Apr 24 19:11:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3O9BjL07400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:11:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3O9Bct07369 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:11:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-13.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.13]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3O9BWn27875 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:11:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AE42090.531298EC@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:31:12 +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] another non-established revoke References: <3.0.6.32.20010423141801.00837d40@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 12:55 21/04/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >After the revoke, a kibitzer had hit the player, thus making > >him realize about the revoke. > > > >I ruled that the revoke had been non-established, ordered it > >changed, applied the penalty card, and at the end gave a > >penalty trick nevertheless. > > > >Well, in actual fact I awarded an adjusted score based on a > >penalty trick for an established revoke. > > > >There had been no question that the kibitzer was "of > >revokers resposability" He was from the same team and had > >been sitting next to this same player for some rounds. > > > >This is a very strange rule : the revoke must be corrected, > >and afterwards there are penalties as well. > > AG : I vaguely recall that we discussed this case between TDs, and that the > conclusion was that the revoke instantly became established, just as if > (defender's) partner had enquired about the revoke. And faily so, because > the two cases are very similar. yep, but the one where partner remarks about is does NOT become established. > Being established, the revoke must not be corrected, but the fact that the > card was a revoke is AI to the NOS. > > Regards, > > Alain Having also read Grattan's reply, I believe there has been some very sloppy lawwriting work here. It seems as though the lawmakers did realize that this case could exist, and yet they did nothing about it. In fact, they introduced L63B, but failed to include the kibitzer case in that one. And yet they allowed the apparent contrarity between L63A and 11B2 to exist. Please WBFLC - urgent request - tell us what to do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 24 19:15:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3O9FiQ08798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:15:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3O9Fat08754 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:15:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-13.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.13]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3O9FWn29865 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:15:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AE42090.531298EC@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:31:12 +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] another non-established revoke References: <3.0.6.32.20010423141801.00837d40@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 12:55 21/04/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >After the revoke, a kibitzer had hit the player, thus making > >him realize about the revoke. > > > >I ruled that the revoke had been non-established, ordered it > >changed, applied the penalty card, and at the end gave a > >penalty trick nevertheless. > > > >Well, in actual fact I awarded an adjusted score based on a > >penalty trick for an established revoke. > > > >There had been no question that the kibitzer was "of > >revokers resposability" He was from the same team and had > >been sitting next to this same player for some rounds. > > > >This is a very strange rule : the revoke must be corrected, > >and afterwards there are penalties as well. > > AG : I vaguely recall that we discussed this case between TDs, and that the > conclusion was that the revoke instantly became established, just as if > (defender's) partner had enquired about the revoke. And faily so, because > the two cases are very similar. yep, but the one where partner remarks about is does NOT become established. > Being established, the revoke must not be corrected, but the fact that the > card was a revoke is AI to the NOS. > > Regards, > > Alain Having also read Grattan's reply, I believe there has been some very sloppy lawwriting work here. It seems as though the lawmakers did realize that this case could exist, and yet they did nothing about it. In fact, they introduced L63B, but failed to include the kibitzer case in that one. And yet they allowed the apparent contrarity between L63A and 11B2 to exist. Please WBFLC - urgent request - tell us what to do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 24 20:26:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3OAPDJ27123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:25:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3OAP6t27119 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:25:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-134.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.134]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3OAP0q11865 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:25:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AE55163.B687E670@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:11:47 +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] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@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: > > > W E > > x QJxx > Axx xxx > Qxxxx Kx > Qxxx J10xx > > E/W play dutch twos (6-11 HCP, 5 in bid major, 4+ in minor). But 3rd hand > NV it could be 4 major + 4 minor, or 52 majors, 33 minors. The convention > is allowed at that level (known suit and all that sort of things). > > pass pass 2S* double > 3C* pass pass pass > > N/S are cold for 4S (or possibly 3NT, although 4S was the popular contract). > > West, forgetting either his system or the fact that he had already passed, > explained 2S as 5 spades, 4+ minor. > Also, he answered 3C, which after his pass should have been fit-showing > (typically 5C/3S), while he thought it was P/C (which it would be without > the initial pass). East explained 3C as fit-showing. > Those differences were corroborated by E/W's system notes, which they > always keep within reach. > > So, the following facts are established : > 1) There was MI about East's opening. > 2) There was no MI about the response. > 3) N/S could have made 4S. > 4) With his 5-card spade suit North couldn't bid anything, because the > bidding implied that all remaining spades were EW's (and also because he > thought he would have time to double 3S when it came back). > 5) East's pass of 3C doesn't sound like he fielded partner's error. It's > normal to try and play in the presumed 54 club fit, rather than the 43 or > 44 in spades, given that it's not their hand. > > N/S didn't agree with the fact that the MI caused the loss of NS's game. > Even given the right information, they pretend, that is : 4 spades with > East (and, remember, 3 with West, which is the right explanation), the > problem would have been the same for them. That neither North, with 5 > spades and a 9-count, nor South, who had already bid once on a flat 16 > count, could not bid again is plain unlucky. > > Faced with this intricated case, the TD decide ... guess what ? > He gave 40/60. > no comment. > Suppose you are on the AC. What do you decide ? > Yes, Herman, I know West wasn't paying full attention to the game. He > usually doesn't. OK, we take that into account when we rule on east's pass. > But, as can be collected from previous mails, 40/60 can't be the right > ruling (in Europe, at least). > What would be ? > Let's see if I understand everything correctly : 1) West has misexplained : he has told opps that East has 5 spades, while he has shown only 4. This misinformation may influence NS's bidding, but the fact that West then shows 3 still makes NS believe they have less spades than EW. The AC should decide based on NS cards if they can enter the bidding still. I don't believe they can, even with correct explanation of 2S. 2) East has heard this misexplanation. He now knows that West intends 3Cl to mean 3Sp/5Cl. Without the misexplanation, what does 3Cl show ? clubs and diamonds. East has no logical alternative to passing, so he has done nothing wrong. Even the knowledge that West has misbid can not be enough to make returning to 4Sp a LA. 3) West has misbid. This is of course no infraction. 4) East has "mis"-explained his side's bidding. Non-adepts of the DWS might let this pass. I don't. I believe that East should explain West's bid in the way that west has intended it. Usually I say this because of the implication that he is "waking partner up", but in this case it is also terribly misleading. After all, he knows spades are 4-1, and yet he persists in telling North that they are 5-3, after which he passes rather than correcting to that presumed fit. I would like to be able to rule against East on this "infraction". So I take their convention cards, burn them, and ask to see real evidence that this is what they are playing. :-) And I give 4Sp to NS. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 24 21:15:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3OBEgA27154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:14:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3OBEbt27150 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:14:37 +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 VAA10296 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:19:20 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:06:35 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:52:19 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 24/04/2001 09:11:07 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk An interesting case appeared in the latest issue of Australia's Directors' Bulletin: In 3NT, declarer was cashing dummy's spade winners, trick by trick. Halfway through this process, declarer called for an *irrational* ten of diamonds (the opponents' suit) while simultaneously pointing at dummy's spade suit. Dummy, away from the table, explained to the TD that declarer was recovering from an illness that sometimes affected declarer's speech processes. How would you rule? * * * This is my ruling: The Laws seem contradictory in this case. L45B states that declarer plays a card from dummy by either naming or picking up the card. But L45C4 includes the option of *designation* of a card. One way of resolving the contradiction is to rule that the word *designation* was merely intended as an omnibus term to include only naming and picking up, but not extending the number of ways cards can be played from dummy. But in my opinion, L45B merely states the preferred way cards should be played from dummy, and pointing to or touching a card from dummy can be a L45C4 *designation*. Therefore, in my opinion, because of South's medical condition, I would rule as TD under L45C4(a) that South's finger designated the ten of spades as the played card. 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 Wed Apr 25 00:41:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3OEdoa24616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:39:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3OEdgt24612 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:39:44 +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 QAA26119; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:36:01 +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 QAA20876; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:39:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010424164250.0082f800@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:42:50 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling In-Reply-To: <3AE55163.B687E670@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@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 12:11 24/04/01 +0200, you wrote: > >4) East has "mis"-explained his side's bidding. >Non-adepts of the DWS might let this pass. >I don't. >I believe that East should explain West's bid in the way >that west has intended it. Usually I say this because of >the implication that he is "waking partner up", but in this >case it is also terribly misleading. >After all, he knows spades are 4-1, and yet he persists in >telling North that they are 5-3, after which he passes >rather than correcting to that presumed fit. AG : you mean that, from West's explanation (5 cards), East should have guessed that West didn't see his own initial pass ? But there is another possible explanation : eg West didn't remember of that particular 3rd hand treatment (3rd hand 2S doesn't always show 5 cards). However, he might well remember the rest (3C is fit-showing). So West makes a fit-showing 3C, and East, a dWS fanatic, explains 3C shows minors. And he gets penalized for wrong explanation, because the AC rule that the first misexplanation didn't affect NS's bidding, but the second did. Oops. >I would like to be able to rule against East on this >"infraction". >So I take their convention cards, burn them, and ask to see >real evidence that this is what they are playing. :-) AG : it was not the convention card, but page 21 of their system notes. Anyway, if CCs and SNs aren't evidence, what is ? >And I give 4Sp to NS. AG : I would have accepted that more easily than the actual 40/60 ruling. At least, it doesn't go against the laws. Ah, yes, I forgot. I was East. 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 Apr 25 00:44:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3OEiP624632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:44:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3OEiIt24628 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:44:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-126.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.126]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id DD9EA22E336 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:44:09 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] another non-established revoke Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:41:19 +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: <000401c0cc4a$7f5384c0$fe62063e@dodona> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott (Tue 24 Apr 2001 00:03) writes: >From: Brambledown >> alain gottcheiner (Mon 23 Apr 2001 13:18) writes: >> >AG : I vaguely recall that we discussed this case >> > between TDs, and that the conclusion was that >> > the revoke instantly became established, just as if >> >(defender's) partner had enquired about the revoke. >> > And fairly so, because the two cases are very similar. >> >Being established, the revoke must not be corrected, ... >> >> No, the revoke is *not* established, that is why it >> *must* be corrected, but the penalty provisions of >> L64 apply *as though it had been established* - >> see L63B. >> >> I agree with Herman, this is a strange Law. I have >> had to apply it on several occasions and the results >> can be truly horrendous for the OS. >+=+ Are we getting confused? Law 63B has no >relevance to interventions by spectators. In >the given circumstances the powers of the >Director derive from Law 11, and are rather >obscurely expressed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I didn't think I was confused. Herman wrote: >I ruled that the revoke had been non-established, ordered it >changed, applied the penalty card, and at the end gave a >penalty trick nevertheless. >Well, in actual fact I awarded an adjusted score based on a >penalty trick for an established revoke. The basis for this ruling appears to be: (i) the revoke *must* be corrected (L62A), the revoke card becoming a MPC (L49) (ii) the kibitzer was determined to be the responsibility of the OS (L11B) (iii) his intervention was equivalent to an intervention by the other defender (iv) this would have been a being a violation of L61B and so (v) L63B then applies. The link between (ii) and (iii) above is a reasonable one but it is not clear whether L11B, which as you say is obscurely expressed, gives this authority. I agree with the ruling but I still think L63B is bad law. 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 Apr 25 02:09:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3OG8gL24672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 02:08:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3OG8at24668 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 02:08:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 74F0ED7CAD for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:08:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:08:31 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <4m8betsn8c2dv0mdp32kbv8d4q7lrnqecj@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f3OG8ct24669 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:29:56 +0100, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>Jesper Dybdal writes >> >>>The only other information I have about what to do here is an >>>approximately 12 years old copy of the EBU "Director's Guide", >>>which prescribes 1.5-0.5 without rounding. Is that still the >>>rule in the EBU? >> >> Yep, that's what it says in the White book. >> >It's wrong of course. BAM is just a degenerate case of matchpoints and >should be scored as 1.2 - 0.8 for A+/A-. Anything else is against L88. No - L88 is about pairs and individual events. Of course, it does tend to seem natural to expect the rules to be the same for BAM as for a 2-table pairs. But the pairs rule was made to be a good general rule for any number of tables, and there is no reason to expect such a rule to also be the best rule for a not very common degenerate case such as 2 tables. I have now recommended that they use 1.2-0.8 rounded to 2-0 in this case, primarily because it matches the Danish tradition of rounding to an integer. But first of all, I have of course recommended that they decide something in advance the next time. By the way, why is it called "board-a-match"? The term "point-a-board" is logical and understable, but BAM sounds more like a one-board match. Thanks to everybody who replied. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 25 05:59:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3OJwIS16503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 05:58:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3OJw9t16453 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 05:58:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from eitan (gcon1-p38.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.170.38]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA03712 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 22:58:09 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010424225701.008d4cd0@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@mail.netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 22:57:01 +0300 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010424164250.0082f800@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3AE55163.B687E670@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@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 >Ah, yes, I forgot. I was East. > > Alain. Sorry, but if you were east you should definitely be penalised for not correcting partner's explanation after the final pass. South would then have had an opportunity to change his final pass in the light of the new information. From your description of the hands he probably would not have done so. Assuming this is so, I add my vote that the table result should stand, but you get a pp. Eitan Levy -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 25 07:09:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3OL9RX04939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:09:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3OL9Jt04887 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:09:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive511.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.20.33]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA03830; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00f801c0cd03$33c728e0$2114f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , References: <4m8betsn8c2dv0mdp32kbv8d4q7lrnqecj@nuser.dybdal.dk> Subject: Re: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:11:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have been told that it is because every board is a match unto itself which you either win or lose. The number of these matches won determines one's score for the overall contest. Each "match" is after all not affected by any activity involving any but the two teams playing. Point-a-board does seems a fine name for it...but the tradition has been BAM here for 70 or so years so it is unlikely it will change. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesper Dybdal" > By the way, why is it called "board-a-match"? The term > "point-a-board" is logical and understable, but BAM sounds more > like a one-board match. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 25 08:06:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3OM5xG20216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:05:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3OM5rt20212 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:05:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3OM6sV14283 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000001c0cd0a$b1692940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <016c01c0c9e5$fcec1d00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A new principle? Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:04:07 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > >While browsing thru some NABC casebooks, I came across a comment by > >Ron Gerard in relation to San Antonio NABC case 20: > > > >"... it is the Committee's or Panel's job to make each side's best > >arguments for them based on the facts presented. That way, > >admissions against interest are treated just as irrelevant as > >self-serving statements, bridge lawyering is not rewarded, and > >failure to engage in bridge lawyering is not punished." > > I think it is awful. Why bother with Committees at all if they are > not to listen to the evidence? What is suggested here is to treat > evidence as irrelevant. Ron wrote "based on the facts presented," which does not exclude facts obtained from the parties concerned. Ron is using "self-serving" in a different sense than you and others are taking it to mean. I think what he means is that admissions against self-interest should be given no more weight than statements that are pretty obviously self-biased. Players can say some pretty dumb things when they are taken away from the table and grilled by ACBL TDs. The least the TDs could do is "read them their rights." Ron Gerard is one of the best NABC AC members and a topnotch casebook panelist. He is an expert player, and has a very good sense of how the game of bridge should be played and adjudicated. I would not dismiss any opinion he puts forth without taking a good look at it. Here's more (from Boston NABC Appeal 10). A dissenting AC pair commented that "A competent pair, playing in a prestigious event, presenting a cogent argument must be givven the benefit of the doubt." To which Ron replied: "Accepting cogent arguments from competent pairs penalizes inexperienced players, lets the Committee avoid its responsibility to present arguments even if not articulated and encourages the bridge lawyering that everyone (well, almost everyone) hates." And more from San Antonio Appeal 20: "It didn't matter that N/S didn't make this argument [that slow tempo was okay in the given situation], the necessary facts were before the committee." > Of course, sensible Committees ascribe different weighting to > different types of evidence - that's ok. And allowing the Committee to > think is no bad thing. But treating some of the evidence as irrelevant > is just wrong. Depends on what you consider "evidence." Rich Colker: "The contents of a player's mind or his intentions are usually irrelevant, often immaterial and sometimes inadmissible by law for adjudication purposes." Ron Gerard: "...self-serving statements are always irrelevant, even if you are convinced of their truthfulness." (San Antonion 20) Marv San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 25 08:42:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3OMgPo20242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:42:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3OMgJt20238 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:42:19 +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 SAA14892 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA08724 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:42:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:42:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200104242242.SAA08724@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk SW> then SW> an avenue to the proper result is to let the revoke become SW> established, then apply L64C. > From: "David Burn" > The > fact that Steve refers to the result that would be obtained by > application of L64C as "the proper result" indicates an emotional bias > that is wholly out of keeping with what is, after all, an intellectual > exercise. This is reading an awful lot into one word, but I understand the point. I do have an emotional reaction that any ruling that ignores the plain language of L64B3 is not a proper one. > In short, if L64C is held to apply in this case, then all > that would be necessary to make almost any contract at all would simply > be to claim, facing one's cards, and asserting that one would revoke in > order to avoid whatever losers one might have. This, on the other hand, is not easy to understand. *If* the TD were to take the route of applying L64C (and apparently neither David B. nor I thinks it is the correct approach), doubtful points will be resolved against the revoker. The effect will be much the same as claiming with no statement, and the result assigned will be the worst of all "normal" lines of play. Some of my partners might think "the worst normal line" would improve *my* results, but I doubt it will do much for David's. > The trouble is that if this revoke is a revoke without > penalty, then so is any revoke by a player who has faced his cards and > claimed... I don't know what "trouble" you see in this, but a revoke by any player who has faced his cards is without penalty. So says L64B3. > You are sure that it is wrong to exact penalty tricks in the case of > this specific declarer, No, I am specifically addressing the general case. *Whatever else you do*, if a hand is faced on the table, there is no penalty for a revoke. > But you do not seem to me to see the logical consequence > of this approach when applied to other cases. What consequences are those? So far, no one has presented a case in which the result is not perfectly sensible. SW> It doesn't seem difficult to see that L53A and L44C are different. > Indeed, the difference between Laws 53 and 44 is, as I calculate, nine. Oh, come on. L44C "takes precedence over all other requirements" and has no provision for exceptions. L53A has an explicit provision allowing the NOS to accept "any lead" out of turn. > But what DWS is saying is that if in the course of play, someone leads > out of turn, then he should pay a penalty; If the lead out of turn is to the advantage of the NOS, they can accept it. If it is to their disadvantage, they can force a lead from the correct hand. (And there may be penalty cards, etc. for defenders.) Otherwise there is no penalty. The rules for revokes are different. > if in the course of play, > someone revokes, then he too should pay a penalty. I agree, but the laws provide for several exceptions. > You appear to me to > assert that if instead of playing, someone claims, then he should pay a > penalty for asserting that he will lead out of turn, No, but the usual rules for leading out of turn apply. > while he should pay > no penalty for asserting that he will revoke. It's not me, it's L44C and 64B3. > Shall we ignore the plain language of L64B3 in the sextuple revoke case? > If not, what shall we do? The claim statement has broken down at the point of the first revoke. Give claimer the worst "normal" line from that point. You rule exactly the way you would when any other claim statement breaks down. One would only rule otherwise if determined to punish the revoke. That may be justice in some sense, but it isn't what the plain text of the laws says. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 25 10:42:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3P0eiT20288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:40:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3P0eat20284 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:40:38 +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 14sDM8-000BWA-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:40:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:23:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104240907.KAA04333@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200104240907.KAA04333@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200104240907.KAA04333@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >David replied to me: >> >Perhaps we can consider the one card ending resulting from this claim: >> > >> > H 2 >> >D A C A >> > D 2 >> > >> >In NT, South concedes "losing a diamond" but the lead is in North. >> >Before the correction period ends, N/S attempt to withdraw the >> >concession and I (as TD) read L71A: >> > "if a player has conceded ... a trick his side could not >> > have lost by any LEGAL play of the remaining cards." >> >and I give them the last trick. >> > >> >Wouldn't you? >> >> Yes, of course, but this is not a ruling under L70A. The principles >> of L71 are different. > >Now I really don't understand. > >Lets try the two (or one-and-a-half) trick ending: > > S 4 > H 2 >D AK > C AK > S 3 > D 2 > >South leads the S3 (at NT) and rather than playing from dummy, >he faces D2 and claims "I will win this trick and lose the D2". > >If North/South now try to claim trick 13, you will rule as a >claim under L70 and give a diamond to EW because South might >have lead from the wrong hand at trick 13. > >However, if North/South call the TD later and wish to withdraw >their concession of trick 13, you will rule as L71A and give a >heart trick to NS. Come on Robin. Be real. > >Robin > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 25 10:53:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3P0qla20307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:52:47 +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-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 f3P0qft20303 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:52:41 +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 14sDXp-0007yN-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:52:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:35:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? References: <4m8betsn8c2dv0mdp32kbv8d4q7lrnqecj@nuser.dybdal.dk> In-Reply-To: <4m8betsn8c2dv0mdp32kbv8d4q7lrnqecj@nuser.dybdal.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <4m8betsn8c2dv0mdp32kbv8d4q7lrnqecj@nuser.dybdal.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:29:56 +0100, "John (MadDog) Probst" > wrote: > >>In article , David Stevenson >> writes >>>Jesper Dybdal writes >>> >>>>The only other information I have about what to do here is an >>>>approximately 12 years old copy of the EBU "Director's Guide", >>>>which prescribes 1.5-0.5 without rounding. Is that still the >>>>rule in the EBU? >>> >>> Yep, that's what it says in the White book. >>> >>It's wrong of course. BAM is just a degenerate case of matchpoints and >>should be scored as 1.2 - 0.8 for A+/A-. Anything else is against L88. > >No - L88 is about pairs and individual events. > >Of course, it does tend to seem natural to expect the rules to be >the same for BAM as for a 2-table pairs. But the pairs rule was >made to be a good general rule for any number of tables, and >there is no reason to expect such a rule to also be the best rule >for a not very common degenerate case such as 2 tables. > >I have now recommended that they use 1.2-0.8 rounded to 2-0 in >this case, primarily because it matches the Danish tradition of >rounding to an integer. Typical Teutons. Nearly as bad as the Frogs. Send us a tub (IBM acronym = BHD - Ball holding device) of tennis balls and we can fight for 100 years. 1.2 - 0.8 is logical, legal, and even hand-scoreable but let's go for the Brits - it's a free shot. Why can't we do the obvious? cheers john > But first of all, I have of course >recommended that they decide something in advance the next time. > >By the way, why is it called "board-a-match"? The term >"point-a-board" is logical and understable, but BAM sounds more >like a one-board match. > >Thanks to everybody who replied. > -- 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 Apr 25 14:35:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3P4VkF21325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:31:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3P4Vet21293 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:31:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010425043136.NQTR29527.femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:31:36 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Played Card Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:36:25 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >An interesting case appeared in the latest issue of Australia's Directors' >Bulletin: > >In 3NT, declarer was cashing dummy's spade winners, trick by trick. >Halfway through this process, declarer called for an *irrational* ten of >diamonds (the opponents' suit) while simultaneously pointing at dummy's >spade suit. Well - the next spade in line to be led was the jack, (only the AKQ had been played and now declarer was calling for the 10 of diamonds... Here are the actual facts: The opening lead was the *D*7 and when declarer called for the queen (the *D*10 was then the only remaining diamond in dummy - LJT), it won. Declarer then played the *S*A, *S*K, *S*Q by calling for each. Then he called for the *D*10. Dummy did not play it but said, "What?" Declarer repeated his call for the *D*10, but a bit more softly. Dummy did not hear this call and asked, "What?" again. Declarer then said "Ten of diamonds, ten of diamonds, ten of diamonds," loudly. The Director was then called and ruled that the *D*10 had been played. And Rich’s opeining comment was: S**t happens, but the rest of us shouldn’t be held hostage on the commode forever. According to the write-up, declarer called specifically and unmistakably for the *D*10 five times, three of them emphatically and in rapid succession. He had just been running the spades (having played the ace, king and queen) and we are asked to believe that he somehow transposed the suits (diamonds for spades) due to his recent illness. But had that been the case, wouldn’t he have called for the "Jack of diamonds" rather than the ten? After all, the *S*J would have been the next card in sequence to be played if he was still fixated on the spades. > >Dummy, away from the table, explained to the TD that declarer was >recovering from an illness that sometimes affected declarer's speech >processes. > >How would you rule? > >* * * > >This is my ruling: > >The Laws seem contradictory in this case. L45B states that declarer plays >a card from dummy by either naming or picking up the card. But L45C4 >includes the option of *designation* of a card. > >One way of resolving the contradiction is to rule that the word >*designation* >was merely intended as an omnibus term to include only naming and picking >up, but not extending the number of ways cards can be played from dummy. > >But in my opinion, L45B merely states the preferred way cards should be >played from dummy, and pointing to or touching a card from dummy can be >a L45C4 *designation*. > >Therefore, in my opinion, because of South's medical condition, I would >rule >as TD under L45C4(a) that South's finger designated the ten of spades as >the >played card. > >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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 25 19:49:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3P9n2a10059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:49:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3P9mtt10055 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:48:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-97.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.97]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3P9mnq20133 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:48:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AE67A99.D98056B4@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:19:53 +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] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010424164250.0082f800@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 12:11 24/04/01 +0200, you wrote: > > > >4) East has "mis"-explained his side's bidding. > >Non-adepts of the DWS might let this pass. > >I don't. > >I believe that East should explain West's bid in the way > >that west has intended it. Usually I say this because of > >the implication that he is "waking partner up", but in this > >case it is also terribly misleading. > >After all, he knows spades are 4-1, and yet he persists in > >telling North that they are 5-3, after which he passes > >rather than correcting to that presumed fit. > > AG : you mean that, from West's explanation (5 cards), East should have > guessed that West didn't see his own initial pass ? But there is another > possible explanation : eg West didn't remember of that particular 3rd hand > treatment (3rd hand 2S doesn't always show 5 cards). However, he might well > remember the rest (3C is fit-showing). So West makes a fit-showing 3C, and > East, a dWS fanatic, explains 3C shows minors. And he gets penalized for > wrong explanation, because the AC rule that the first misexplanation didn't > affect NS's bidding, but the second did. Oops. > You see Alain, it all depends. If East can convince me that he had no idea why West misexplained, then I don't need to seek for bad intentions in his own explanation. But if, as I expect, East is well aware of the type of mistake that west has made (he doesn't need to know if West has forgotten the system or his own pass - the result is the same), then he might be found guilty of this infraction that only I recognize : "deliberately misinforming opponents of the actual lie of the cards by correctly informing them of the system". After all, we expect players not to limit themselves to the actual system when explaining, but to include experience with the partner. When I open 1He in third hand, we'd expect from my partner to explain that I am quite likely to open my shorter major when faced with 0-3 points in third seat. Especially when the bidding proceeds in such a way that this becomes relevant. So why should we not expect this east to explain "systemically, this promises 3Sp and 5Cl, but partner is apt to forget that part of the system, in which case he holds clubs and diamonds". Especially when he realises that this is very likely. You said it yourself, west forgets the system regularly. If it is not an infraction to explain to opponents that you have shown 8 spades between you, when you expect that there are between 4 and 6, then it should be. At least allow me to look for loopholes in the laws that permit me to rule that way. > >I would like to be able to rule against East on this > >"infraction". > > >So I take their convention cards, burn them, and ask to see > >real evidence that this is what they are playing. :-) > > AG : it was not the convention card, but page 21 of their system notes. > Anyway, if CCs and SNs aren't evidence, what is ? > Well, the actual bidding and explanation at the table tell me that in West's opinion, the system is as he explained it. > >And I give 4Sp to NS. > > AG : I would have accepted that more easily than the actual 40/60 ruling. > At least, it doesn't go against the laws. > Ah, yes, I forgot. I was East. > Then tell us truely, Alain, were you surprised/expecting/convinced that your partner held diamonds, not spades ? If the answer is either expecting or convinced, why did you not tell your opponents this in one way or another ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 25 21:01:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3PB0iB10094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:00:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3PB0ct10090 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:00:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 9AB26D80B7 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:00:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:00:34 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <60bdetgj8frda294hak7u8l6jrtqt18koh@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <4m8betsn8c2dv0mdp32kbv8d4q7lrnqecj@nuser.dybdal.dk> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f3PB0et10091 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:35:22 +0100, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >In article <4m8betsn8c2dv0mdp32kbv8d4q7lrnqecj@nuser.dybdal.dk>, Jesper >Dybdal writes >>I have now recommended that they use 1.2-0.8 rounded to 2-0 in >>this case, primarily because it matches the Danish tradition of >>rounding to an integer. > >Typical Teutons. Nearly as bad as the Frogs. Send us a tub (IBM >acronym = BHD - Ball holding device) of tennis balls and we can fight >for 100 years. 1.2 - 0.8 is logical, legal, and even hand-scoreable but >let's go for the Brits - it's a free shot. Why can't we do the obvious? Because your obvious score of 1.2-0.8 is far from obvious in a country where the corresponding situation in pairs involves rounding. Notice that I didn't say that the Danish rounding tradition was good in any way, only that I find it reasonable to follow it in a situation were a procedure has not been established beforehand. Also, as I mentioned earlier, it is not inconsistent with the whole idea of point-a-board that the side that does best on a board gets the full 2 points. I am afraid that we will not get rid of that rounding tradition soon, by the way - I am pretty sure that only using integers is built deeply into lots of software. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 25 21:40:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3PBeSm17850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:40:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3PBeCt17774 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:40:14 +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 14sNeQ-0008sj-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:40:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:06:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104240907.KAA04333@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200104240907.KAA04333@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 replied to me: >> >Perhaps we can consider the one card ending resulting from this claim: >> > >> > H 2 >> >D A C A >> > D 2 >> > >> >In NT, South concedes "losing a diamond" but the lead is in North. >> >Before the correction period ends, N/S attempt to withdraw the >> >concession and I (as TD) read L71A: >> > "if a player has conceded ... a trick his side could not >> > have lost by any LEGAL play of the remaining cards." >> >and I give them the last trick. >> > >> >Wouldn't you? >> >> Yes, of course, but this is not a ruling under L70A. The principles >> of L71 are different. > >Now I really don't understand. > >Lets try the two (or one-and-a-half) trick ending: > > S 4 > H 2 >D AK > C AK > S 3 > D 2 > >South leads the S3 (at NT) and rather than playing from dummy, >he faces D2 and claims "I will win this trick and lose the D2". > >If North/South now try to claim trick 13, you will rule as a >claim under L70 and give a diamond to EW because South might >have lead from the wrong hand at trick 13. > >However, if North/South call the TD later and wish to withdraw >their concession of trick 13, you will rule as L71A and give a >heart trick to NS. If you are going to offer completely different scenarios then not only are you going to be confused, but you are going to confuse your readers! Case 1. You concede one trick in a one card ending. This is a concession, and dealt with as a concession. Case 2. You claim one trick and concede one trick in a two card ending. This is a claim and a concession, and dealt with as a claim, and dealt with as a concession. L70A refers to contested claims. In Case 1 there is no contested claim, so L70A does not apply. In Case 2 there was a claim, and someone presumably contests it, so L70A *does* apply. Now, all I said was that the contested claim Law does not apply in Case 1, and it does not. I agree with your application of L71, but do not see it as a good example of dealing with a contested claim. In Case 2, legally, I can give the defence a trick under L70A [I expect I would not because I do not really believe he would lead from the wrong hand, but as with the main problem of this thread, determination of the facts is not the interest]. Thus Case 2 is completely different from Case 1 because it involves a contested claim. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 25 21:40:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3PBeSY17847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:40:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3PBeDt17784 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:40:14 +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 14sNeS-000B6C-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:40:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:18:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card 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 > >An interesting case appeared in the latest issue of Australia's Directors' >Bulletin: > >In 3NT, declarer was cashing dummy's spade winners, trick by trick. >Halfway through this process, declarer called for an *irrational* ten of >diamonds (the opponents' suit) while simultaneously pointing at dummy's >spade suit. > >Dummy, away from the table, explained to the TD that declarer was >recovering from an illness that sometimes affected declarer's speech >processes. > >How would you rule? > >* * * > >This is my ruling: > >The Laws seem contradictory in this case. L45B states that declarer plays >a card from dummy by either naming or picking up the card. But L45C4 >includes the option of *designation* of a card. Let us read the Law carefully. L45B states there are two ways to play dummy's card. First, by naming it. Second, as an alternative and only when necessary, by picking it up. The second option did not apply here. Now, L45C4 does not give another option. It says that if a card is designated then it must be played, except that an inadvertent designation may be changed without pause for thought [or saying "Oh s**t!"]. >One way of resolving the contradiction is to rule that the word >*designation* >was merely intended as an omnibus term to include only naming and picking >up, but not extending the number of ways cards can be played from dummy. Better is to read the Law. L45C4A does *not* tell you that such a card is played but that it must be - and L45C4B provides a get-out. >But in my opinion, L45B merely states the preferred way cards should be >played from dummy, and pointing to or touching a card from dummy can be >a L45C4 *designation*. No. L45B tells you how a card is played. >Therefore, in my opinion, because of South's medical condition, I would >rule >as TD under L45C4(a) that South's finger designated the ten of spades as >the >played card. The player designated two cards simultaneously, and no doubt the irrational one was inadvertent and thus may be changed. So the spade may be played. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 25 21:40:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3PBeR117842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:40:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3PBeDt17783 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:40:14 +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 14sNeQ-000B6B-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:40:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:08:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A+/A- in a point-a-board match? 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 >>Jesper Dybdal writes >> >>>The only other information I have about what to do here is an >>>approximately 12 years old copy of the EBU "Director's Guide", >>>which prescribes 1.5-0.5 without rounding. Is that still the >>>rule in the EBU? >> >> Yep, that's what it says in the White book. >> >It's wrong of course. BAM is just a degenerate case of matchpoints and >should be scored as 1.2 - 0.8 for A+/A-. Anything else is against L88. No, not quite true, John. The White book also tells us the minimum unit of scoring which is 0.5 for BAM [L78D] so 1.2 - 0.8 is wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 25 22:03:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3PC2VS25559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:02:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3PC2Nt25517 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:02:24 +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 f3PC2EC26140 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:02:15 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f3PC2Dp18835 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:02:13 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:02:12 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 NAA06643 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:02:12 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA04657 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:02:11 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:02:11 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200104251202.NAA04657@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > >Lets try the two (or one-and-a-half) trick ending: > > > > S 4 > > H 2 > >D AK > > C AK > > S 3 > > D 2 > > > >South leads the S3 (at NT) and rather than playing from dummy, > >he faces D2 and claims "I will win this trick and lose the D2". > > > >If North/South now try to claim trick 13, you will rule as a > >claim under L70 and give a diamond to EW because South might > >have lead from the wrong hand at trick 13. > > > >However, if North/South call the TD later and wish to withdraw > >their concession of trick 13, you will rule as L71A and give a > >heart trick to NS. > > If you are going to offer completely different scenarios then not only > are you going to be confused, but you are going to confuse your readers! Then I'll stick with this example. > Case 1. You concede one trick in a one card ending. This is a > concession, and dealt with as a concession. > > Case 2. You claim one trick and concede one trick in a two card > ending. This is a claim and a concession, and dealt with as a claim, > and dealt with as a concession. > > L70A refers to contested claims. In Case 1 there is no contested > claim, so L70A does not apply. > > In Case 2 there was a claim, and someone presumably contests it, so > L70A *does* apply. > > Now, all I said was that the contested claim Law does not apply in > Case 1, and it does not. I agree with your application of L71, but do > not see it as a good example of dealing with a contested claim. > > In Case 2, legally, I can give the defence a trick under L70A [I > expect I would not because I do not really believe he would lead from > the wrong hand, but as with the main problem of this thread, > determination of the facts is not the interest]. Thus Case 2 is > completely different from Case 1 because it involves a contested claim. In the case above (which you refer to as Case 2) there are two scenarios. Scenario 1. Claim contested by claiming side. You rule L70: trick to EW. Scenario 2. Claim not contested. Concession of trick 13 (part of the claim) later withdrawn by NS. I rule L71: trick 12 and 13 to NS. So it is better for North not to say "but won't dummy make H2" when South claims. He should wait a round or two and call the TD "South conceded a trick he could lose by any legal play two rounds ago". Is this right? 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 Apr 25 22:39:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3PCddr02652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:39:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3PCdWt02648 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:39:33 +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 f3PCdSC00601 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:39:29 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f3PCdSj23144 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:39:28 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:39:27 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 NAA06675 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:39:27 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA04676 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:39:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:39:26 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200104251239.NAA04676@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: > So it is better for North not to say "but won't dummy make H2" when > South claims. He should wait a round or two and call the TD > "South conceded a trick he could lose by any legal play two rounds ago". ^ not > Is this right? Oops! (I should just have copied L71 verbatim.) That will allow DWS to make more condescending remarks about me only confusing myself. :-) 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 Apr 26 00:47:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3PEjEw02708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:45:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3PEj4t02704 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:45:06 +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 QAA16396; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:44:58 +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 QAA13949; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:44:32 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010425164810.007f6ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:48:10 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling In-Reply-To: <3AE67A99.D98056B4@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010424164250.0082f800@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 09:19 25/04/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >alain gottcheiner wrote: >So why should we not expect this east to explain >"systemically, this promises 3Sp and 5Cl, but partner is apt >to forget that part of the system, in which case he holds >clubs and diamonds". Especially when he realises that this >is very likely. You said it yourself, west forgets the >system regularly. AG : no, no, I didn't say that. Quite to the contrary, he knows his system better than I know. What happens quite frequently is that some cow flies by (ie, some very minor disturbance causes him to overlook something important, in this case his initial pass). Let's sum it up. With this West, the hypothesis 'he didn't even remember who opened' is quite more plausible that the other 'he didn't remember the system'. In which case I should have explained that it's sither 5C/3C (if he saw) or C/D (if he didn't). OK, I'll do it in similar cases. That's one case where the dWS attitude seems quite respectable; Except perhaps for the fact that I would react thusly because I heard partner's wrong exlpanation, that is, I'm acting on the basis of UI. But, since the aim is to avoid decieving opponents, it's probably the lesser evil. Is that the main conclusion to be drawn from the dWS principles ? Well, the main conclusion should be 'give us screens'. >Then tell us truely, Alain, were you >surprised/expecting/convinced that your partner held >diamonds, not spades ? AG : surprised. I didn't consider the implications that one part of his error had on the other. But perhaps I should have. >If the answer is either expecting or convinced, why did you >not tell your opponents this in one way or another ? AG : because I'm to f*** dumb to realize it ! BTW, without dWS principles, I'm not even allowed to expect it. -Thank you for your very instructive answer. 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 Apr 26 01:35:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3PFYtC02731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:34:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3PFYnt02727 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:34:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-33.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.33]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 87C2554605 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:34:45 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming a revoke Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:31:53 +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: <200104251202.NAA04657@tempest.npl.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker (Wed 25 Apr 2001 13:02) writes: >> > S 4 >> > H 2 >> >D AK >> > C AK >> > S 3 >> > D 2 >> > >> >South leads the S3 (at NT) and rather than playing from dummy, >> >he faces D2 and claims "I will win this trick and lose the D2". >> You claim one trick and concede one trick in a two card >> ending. This is a claim and a concession, and dealt with as a claim, >> and dealt with as a concession. >> In Case 2 there was a claim, and someone presumably contests it, so >> L70A *does* apply. >> >> In Case 2, legally, I can give the defence a trick under L70A [I >> expect I would not because I do not really believe he would lead from >> the wrong hand, but as with the main problem of this thread, >> determination of the facts is not the interest]. Thus Case 2 is >> completely different from Case 1 because it involves a contested claim. > >In the case above (which you refer to as Case 2) there are two scenarios. > >Scenario 1. Claim contested by claiming side. You rule L70: trick to EW. > >Scenario 2. Claim not contested. Concession of trick 13 (part of the >claim) later withdrawn by NS. I rule L71: trick 12 and 13 to NS. > >So it is better for North not to say "but won't dummy make H2" when >South claims. He should wait a round or two and call the TD >"South conceded a trick he could not have lost by any legal play two rounds ago". >Is this right? I don't follow any of this. If declarer says "I will win this trick and lose the D2" this constitutes a claim in respect of trick 12 and a concession of trick 13. The ownership of trick 12 is not in question, the defence are not going to contest the claim and L70 doesn't come into it. If declarer now wishes to withdraw the concession of trick 13 then L71 applies and as long as the correction period hasn't expired it is irrelevant when he does it. 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 Apr 26 02:29:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3PGSc202760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 02:28:38 +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-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 f3PGSVt02756 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 02:28:32 +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 14sS9S-000FGR-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:28:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:19:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A new principle? References: <016c01c0c9e5$fcec1d00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000001c0cd0a$b1692940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <000001c0cd0a$b1692940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Marvin L. French writes > >> >While browsing thru some NABC casebooks, I came across a comment >by >> >Ron Gerard in relation to San Antonio NABC case 20: >> > >> >"... it is the Committee's or Panel's job to make each side's >best >> >arguments for them based on the facts presented. That way, >> >admissions against interest are treated just as irrelevant as >> >self-serving statements, bridge lawyering is not rewarded, and >> >failure to engage in bridge lawyering is not punished." >> >> I think it is awful. Why bother with Committees at all if they >are >> not to listen to the evidence? What is suggested here is to treat >> evidence as irrelevant. > >Ron wrote "based on the facts presented," which does not exclude >facts obtained from the parties concerned. Ron is using >"self-serving" in a different sense than you and others are taking >it to mean. No, I have been listening to the arguments about the meaning of this term. Despite that, to ignore such evidence is wrong. > I think what he means is that admissions against >self-interest should be given no more weight than statements that >are pretty obviously self-biased. That is fine, but it is *definitely not* what he said. >Ron Gerard is one of the best NABC AC members and a topnotch >casebook panelist. He is an expert player, and has a very good sense >of how the game of bridge should be played and adjudicated. I would >not dismiss any opinion he puts forth without taking a good look at >it. I am happy to take a look, but there is a problem with the black-or- white approach: it too often puts simplicity ahead of justice. >> Of course, sensible Committees ascribe different weighting to >> different types of evidence - that's ok. And allowing the >Committee to >> think is no bad thing. But treating some of the evidence as >irrelevant >> is just wrong. >Depends on what you consider "evidence." Not in my view. By evidence I mean what you consider evidence, not what I do. >Rich Colker: "The contents of a player's mind or his intentions are >usually irrelevant, often immaterial and sometimes inadmissible by >law for adjudication purposes." That is the sort of thing that Ron should be saying. If Ron had said tha abovesentence he would have worded it: >Ron Gerard: "The contents of a player's mind or his intentions are >always irrelevant, definitely immaterial and completely inadmissible by >law for adjudication purposes." ... and that is wrong. >Ron Gerard: "...self-serving statements are always irrelevant, even >if you are convinced of their truthfulness." (San Antonion 20) See? What Ron has got wrong is saying that such things should always be: it might be a useful guideline to reduce the weighting of such evidence, but, as Rich's words make clear, not 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 Thu Apr 26 03:04:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3PH4L109885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 03:04:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3PH4Et09856 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 03:04:14 +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 14sShy-000OO4-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:04:10 +0000 Message-ID: <5rsA6JBoBw56Ew8W@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:50:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke References: <200104251202.NAA04657@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200104251202.NAA04657@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 >> >Lets try the two (or one-and-a-half) trick ending: >> > >> > S 4 >> > H 2 >> >D AK >> > C AK >> > S 3 >> > D 2 >> > >> >South leads the S3 (at NT) and rather than playing from dummy, >> >he faces D2 and claims "I will win this trick and lose the D2". >> > >> >If North/South now try to claim trick 13, you will rule as a >> >claim under L70 and give a diamond to EW because South might >> >have lead from the wrong hand at trick 13. >> > >> >However, if North/South call the TD later and wish to withdraw >> >their concession of trick 13, you will rule as L71A and give a >> >heart trick to NS. >In the case above (which you refer to as Case 2) there are two scenarios. > >Scenario 1. Claim contested by claiming side. You rule L70: trick to EW. > >Scenario 2. Claim not contested. Concession of trick 13 (part of the >claim) later withdrawn by NS. I rule L71: trick 12 and 13 to NS. > >So it is better for North not to say "but won't dummy make H2" when >South claims. He should wait a round or two and call the TD >"South conceded a trick he could lose by any legal play two rounds ago". >Is this right? Now that is interesting. I would like to hear other opinions on this, but my instinct is no: there was still a claim, North is now contesting it, so the correct ruling [whatever it is] is unchanged by the difference in timing. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 26 09:53:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3PNr9006311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:53:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3PNr0t06272 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:53:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-97-33.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.97.33]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3PNqgH17400; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:52:42 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002a01c0cde2$c700df40$2161063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anna Gudge" Cc: "lynn hunt" , , Subject: [BLML] Selling technique. Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:41:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:57:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010426005741.TYZP29527.femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:57:41 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:02:09 -0700 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 V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > The player designated two cards simultaneously, and no doubt the >irrational one was inadvertent and thus may be changed. So the spade >may be played. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Hmmm... when you had the proper facts you said... Stevenson: "It is unfortunate that the Vancouver appeal, which was clearly wrong in its application of law, should now be cited in completely different cases. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable that the general bridge-playing public should quote it in unsuitable situations because of the amount of complete rubbish spoken and written about it. Personally, if I were the player with the health problem I would get a new partner. I would not accept playing with a partner who broke the laws deliberately for my sake. It is acceptable for opponents to be lenient in matters of law where health is concerned, but partner must remain ethical and law-abiding." Anaheim Case 44 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 Apr 26 20:34:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3QAXS812277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:33:28 +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 f3QAXJt12232 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:33:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-179.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.179]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3QAXDn08616 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:33:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AE7DFA3.3572B064@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:43:15 +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] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010424164250.0082f800@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010425164810.007f6ad0@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 09:19 25/04/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >alain gottcheiner wrote: > >So why should we not expect this east to explain > >"systemically, this promises 3Sp and 5Cl, but partner is apt > >to forget that part of the system, in which case he holds > >clubs and diamonds". Especially when he realises that this > >is very likely. You said it yourself, west forgets the > >system regularly. > > AG : no, no, I didn't say that. Quite to the contrary, he knows his system > better than I know. What happens quite frequently is that some cow flies by > (ie, some very minor disturbance causes him to overlook something > important, in this case his initial pass). > As I said, it doesn't really matter why he misalerts. The fact that he misalerts is there for you to interpret, and the interpretation might lead you to believe he has diamonds in stead of spades. > Let's sum it up. With this West, the hypothesis 'he didn't even remember > who opened' is quite more plausible that the other 'he didn't remember the > system'. In which case I should have explained that it's sither 5C/3C (if > he saw) or C/D (if he didn't). OK, I'll do it in similar cases. That's one > case where the dWS attitude seems quite respectable; Except perhaps for the > fact that I would react thusly because I heard partner's wrong exlpanation, > that is, I'm acting on the basis of UI. This is a common misconception about the DwS. L16 does not say that you are not allowed to act on the basis of UI; L16 says that you are not allowed to bid or play on the basis of UI. IOW, L16 does not prohibit you from explaining partner's bidding to opponents in the manner of his own explanation of your bid. > But, since the aim is to avoid > decieving opponents, it's probably the lesser evil. Is that the main > conclusion to be drawn from the dWS principles ? Yes, indeed - in this case it is the lesser evil in the eyes of opponents as well. > Well, the main conclusion should be 'give us screens'. > > >Then tell us truely, Alain, were you > >surprised/expecting/convinced that your partner held > >diamonds, not spades ? > > AG : surprised. I didn't consider the implications that one part of his > error had on the other. But perhaps I should have. > OK, I believe you. I will not rule against you when you have done nothing knowingly wrong. But of course you are only off the hook because of the likeness of the wrong explanation with the right one. Your partner explained that you had 5Sp-4m, when it should have been 5Sp(4)-4m. I can accept that you attribute this small error to forgetfulness, not to his misconcemption of who opened. There must be other cases out there where the misexplanation leads to a clear concemption of what is wrong with partner, and thus a more clear realisation of what he is intending with his next call. I believe it is almost criminal to now explain to opponents some doubly wrong distribution. > >If the answer is either expecting or convinced, why did you > >not tell your opponents this in one way or another ? > > AG : because I'm to f*** dumb to realize it ! BTW, without dWS principles, > I'm not even allowed to expect it. > Yes you are allowed to expect it, even without DwS principles. You are not allowed to base your calls or plays upon it, but all the rest, you are allowed to realize them. Besides, you do need to draw the necessary inferences. How else are you going to determine that you should not make a call which you deem a LA, because L16 tells you not to. You need to know the UI in order to determine which action is suggested so that you can avoid taking it. > -Thank you for your very instructive answer. > > 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 27 11:07:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3R168K28088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:06:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3R15xt28074 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:06:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-88-131.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.88.131]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3R15lH24547 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 02:05:48 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001b01c0ceb6$276d0600$8358063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010424164250.0082f800@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010425164810.007f6ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3AE7DFA3.3572B064@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 02:04:39 +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 To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling -----------------\x/------------------ > This is a common misconception about the DwS. L16 does not > say that you are not allowed to act on the basis of UI; L16 > says that you are not allowed to bid or play on the basis of > UI. IOW, L16 does not prohibit you from explaining > partner's bidding to opponents in the manner of his own > explanation of your bid. > > > But, since the aim is to avoid > > decieving opponents, it's probably the lesser evil. Is that the main > > conclusion to be drawn from the dWS principles ? > > Yes, indeed - in this case it is the lesser evil in the eyes > of opponents as well. > +=+ Hmm. Be careful please. The first requirement is to explain according to the partnership agreement. This must be done. There have been at least two major international appeals decisions where the player who merely explained what he knew erring partner meant, not what the bid meant per system, was adjudged to have misinformed opponents who said that if they had been given the meaning of the bid per the partnership agreements they would have done something different - with more success. Certainly, having given the correct explanation, it is proper to add the knowledge gained from experience of partner's past mistakes, but as has been said, this information is UI to the explainer. ~ 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 Apr 27 13:01:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3R312V27132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:01:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3R30st27121 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:00:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f3R2wSu12686 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 22:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001b01c0ceb6$276d0600$8358063e@dodona> References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010424164250.0082f800@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010425164810.007f6ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3AE7DFA3.3572B064@village.uunet.be> <001b01c0ceb6$276d0600$8358063e@dodona> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 22:54:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Certainly, having given the correct >explanation, it is proper to add the >knowledge gained from experience of >partner's past mistakes, but as has >been said, this information is UI to the >explainer. ~ Grattan ~ I must be misreading this, for I read it as that the "knowledge gained from partner's past mistakes" is UI to the person explaining the meaning of partner's call. That's not really what you meant, is 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/AwUBOujg4r2UW3au93vOEQJTeACcDzLeQG7fOCAm0hy1L6u71M7ahagAnitX G/fP5nQGyUzTMBPO5ewWVsfM =hG+8 -----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 Apr 27 18:03:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3R83Dr19836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:03:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3R834t19790 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:03:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-248.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.248]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3R82wn08955 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:02:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AE9205E.3FA38FBD@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:31:42 +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] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010424164250.0082f800@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010425164810.007f6ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3AE7DFA3.3572B064@village.uunet.be> <001b01c0ceb6$276d0600$8358063e@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott "Your explanation had the ring of truth. > Naturally I disbelieved it." - Joe Orton. > + + + + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 9:43 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian > ruling > -----------------\x/------------------ > > > This is a common misconception about the DwS. L16 does not > > say that you are not allowed to act on the basis of UI; L16 > > says that you are not allowed to bid or play on the basis of > > UI. IOW, L16 does not prohibit you from explaining > > partner's bidding to opponents in the manner of his own > > explanation of your bid. > > > > > But, since the aim is to avoid > > > decieving opponents, it's probably the lesser evil. Is that the > main > > > conclusion to be drawn from the dWS principles ? > > > > Yes, indeed - in this case it is the lesser evil in the eyes > > of opponents as well. > > > +=+ Hmm. Be careful please. The first > requirement is to explain according to > the partnership agreement. I believe you are mistaken. I believe the laws say you must tell everything you know. L75A That law is then "weakened" by L75C, which says that only that which is agreement must be told, not what is "general knowledge". But the problem in cases like this one is that "agreement" is not something which the player knows, it is something which the TD decides. It is the TD who shall determine what the actual agreement is. I believe that cases where the player knows that this particular piece of agreement is clearly spelt out on page 23 of system notes that he has with him and that he is certain the TD and AC will accept, are white ravens. Far more common are those cases where the player knows what partner intends, because he has just heard him explain the previous bid (perhaps erreously). > This must > be done. There have been at least two > major international appeals decisions > where the player who merely explained > what he knew erring partner meant, not > what the bid meant per system, was > adjudged to have misinformed opponents > who said that if they had been given the > meaning of the bid per the partnership > agreements they would have done > something different - with more success. I would like to see references to those cases. If the "damage" is through some incredible piece of bridge luck, then I don't believe those rulings are right. More probably it is because the implications of the other's side bidding were misinformed. But I really want to see those appeals. > Certainly, having given the correct > explanation, it is proper to add the > knowledge gained from experience of > partner's past mistakes, but as has > been said, this information is UI to the > explainer. ~ Grattan ~ > Yes, we know that, and it is of absolutely no importance to the discussion at hand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 27 22:00:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3RBxDW22279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 21:59:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe47.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3RBx6t22275 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 21:59:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 04:58:59 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.54.104.242] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 06:59:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2001 11:58:59.0029 (UTC) FILETIME=[71663050:01C0CF11] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn | | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Roger Pewick" | To: "blml" | Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 7:02 PM | Subject: [BLML] claiming out of turn | | | > | > 2 | > 2 | > 32 | > void | > | > 3 void | > void JT9 | > KQJ A | > Void void | > | > Void | > AKQ | > T | > void | > | > The contract is NT, lead is in the south [declarer]. Declarer calls | > for dummy's spade, played. RHO is scratching his head for a few | > seconds and declarer then says 'I have the rest, taking three hearts.' | > | > W feels he is entitled to the rest by his partner unblocking the D ace | > on the spade. However a claim of the last four tricks has occurred and | > no one has yet accepted the LOOT. | > | > A lot of clarification of the law has taken place recently. So, In | > strict accordance with law, what is the adjudication? And does it | > seem right, irrespective of the law? | > | > As an added dimension, according to the clarification, claimer was to | > pitch the diamond on the spade for T10. Must the adjudication in | > this case call for the lead of the diamond at T10? | > | Some time ago, I suggested that Law 68 applies only to tricks other that | the trick in progress. I was rapidly jumped upon, from a great height, | by most if this group :-) Now convinced that Law 68 does apply to the | trick in progress, I am happy to rule this claim from the play of the | two of spades. | | We do not know why East is cogitating. He may be wondering whether or | not to accept the lead from the wrong hand, or he may be wondering | whether to pitch the AD, or whether to pitch a heart. | | Either defender could have accepted the lead from the wrong hand, Law | 55, and in saying that he is going to win this trick with the 3S West | has done so, albeit after play ceased. | | Declarers claim is flawed, as the rest of the tricks are not his. | | I am going to rule that after the play of the 2S, when declarer has | faced his cards, East will get the pitch right without West's help, so I | award all four remaining tricks to the defending side.Law 70. | | Anne Given the guidance of Grattan I am a bit surprised at the ruling: From: To: ; Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming a revoke; was Re: [BLML] Deleting Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 9:35 AM In a message dated 4/18/01 7:58:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk writes: > You do not score tricks "made" in claims; instead "The board is scored > AS THOUGH the the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in > ------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- +=+ from Grattan: When we wrote the laws we insulated the adjudication of claim from 'play'. From the point of claim the Director is dealing solely with the claim: with the Director conducting the procedure and the hands faced no irregularity can exist and should one be proposed in the notional play /// rectification takes place without penalty -/// there is no provision in the relevant law for penalizing a player. To make an error in the statement of clarification is not an infraction. [Were it otherwise the attempt to revoke would in any case be subject to 64B3, but this is not relevant. The outcome of a claim is an adjudication by the Director; it is not a result of play.] I recognize that the difficulty some have in seeing this arises because the law is expressed positively as to what happens, does not contain negative statements as to what is not to happen, and in the style Kaplan preferred excludes what is not expressly provided by law. This principle was reconfirmed by the WBF Laws Committee on 24th August 1998; although numbers of those engaged in the game feel that what is not intended should be explicitly denied in the Laws, and although my aim in the next General Review of the Laws is to persuade drafting sub-committee colleagues that we should act fundamentally to clarify the intentions of the Laws (and not abide with the Kaplanesque addiction to inferential understandings), for the moment we have the Law in the Kaplan style: we must read and understand it accordingly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In the case- The director is summoned and wants to know how he can help. West says that in NT dummy led a losing spade and then declarer claimed the rest. He says that when partner unblocks his ace he will take the rest of the tricks. The TD asks, ' Who won T9?' 'Declarer.' The TD explains that when a claim is contested that illegal play within the claim is corrected without penalty [As the claim included T10 any infraction within T10 is rectified there being option to condone without penalty]. Declarer's play to T10 therefore is in doubt and is resolved by a line that is normal but not irrational- To West, 'What normal play by declarer's hand leads to four tricks to the defense?' 'Well, declarer could lead a diamond.' 'Declarer is missing the diamond AKQJ when he has the winning AKQ in a different suit, leading the diamond would be irrational at T10. Ruling- the claim included illegal play to T10; the lead is corrected to the proper hand where three heart winners for declarer are cashed and one diamond for the defense.' I think it would cause significant debate to consider the case had dummy's LHO contributed a card to the LOOT prior to the claim. The language above is strong. The LOOT before a remedy is still a LOOT after a remedy, even though it is treated as a lead in turn. It follows that a contested claim will have the effect of negating the accepted LOOT just the same as in the original case. As far as my comments, to me it is very important to the outcome of a hand what the players have done. I think that the view where declarer, by leading out of turn has earned a score based in part on the outcome of the remedy for the infraction. I think that a claim ought to give the opponents the right to inspect the unplayed cards immediately which entitles them to make an informed selection as to resolving T10. It is my instinct that says that it is shortsighted to provide law that does not permit that an opponent to penalize an infraction. A claim can be made in two situations [a] when no trick is in progress and [b] when a trick is in progress. I think that a good approach is for when a trick was not progress that it is good that claimed lines that are illegal be corrected without penalty but that for a trick interrupted it should be resolved, as Grattan has put it, under the rules of play- even though the play period has been terminated by fiat. 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 Apr 27 22:08:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3RC7xS25135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:07:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3RC7lt25061 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:07:48 +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 OAA04591; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:07:40 +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 OAA23497; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:07:15 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010427141100.00834100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:11:00 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling In-Reply-To: <3AE9205E.3FA38FBD@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010424164250.0082f800@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010425164810.007f6ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3AE7DFA3.3572B064@village.uunet.be> <001b01c0ceb6$276d0600$8358063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >I believe that cases where the player knows that this >particular piece of agreement is clearly spelt out on page >23 of system notes that he has with him and that he is >certain the TD and AC will accept, are white ravens. AG : I've a feeling that I could be a good white raven trainer. Because, if system notes are well written, they should contain everything an opponent or TD would want to know ; and mine do. And quite frankly, I feel that it's the _black_ ravens that are wrong. In Lille, even for pairs tournaments, complementatry notes to the CC were compulsory for every non-obvious convention ; isn't this generalized ? Anyway, you could put more pressure, on the tones of : either you can prove it, or you will be deemed wrong. Want to bet that more and more people will have their notes at hand ? >> Certainly, having given the correct >> explanation, it is proper to add the >> knowledge gained from experience of >> partner's past mistakes, but as has >> been said, this information is UI to the >> explainer. ~ Grattan ~ >> > >Yes, we know that, and it is of absolutely no importance to >the discussion at hand. AG : there are cases where the application of DwS principles would be more hazardous. Let's consider this quite common case : pass 1S 2C 2D Where the pair plays some form of Drury, and 2C was not alerted. Should West alert 2D, and what should he explain ? This all depends of the reason why East did not alert. There can be many : 1) he forgot he was 3rd-in-hand 2) he forgot they are playing Drury 3) he simply forgot to alert, because he was concentrating on his response 4) he alerted, but West didn't notice it, because he too was concentrating on his next bid So, the UI caused by East's non-alert is quite mild. Unless East is much more prone to be in situations # 1 or 2 (knowledge of this particular East helps, of course), I would, as West, assume he simply forgot to alert, alert his 2D, and explain it as whatever a 2D response to 2C is. If, in doing so, I create UI in cases 1 or 2, and if the TD rules against me based on this UI, too bad. He is right. But the mess caused by not alerting 2D (which would be right, according to the DwS) is worse (and not alerting is an infraction, and doing it deliberately is a serious offense). In fact, if I was West, # 4 could well be the right explanation. And, of course, in some cases, there is always to consider #5 : partner knew the bid was not purely natural, but didn't deem it alertable (remember this jurisprudency about screens : the fact that one partner alerts and the other not is not per se MI, because there might be diverging opinions). For example, we earlier discussed whether, when playing Walsh, 1C-1D should be alerted. Let's assume East doesn't alert 1D, and that he should have. Now West thinks East has forgotten they were playing Walsh, and doesn't alert the 1NT rebid ? This is what the DwS would ask for, if 1D was indeed alertable. But I would be prone to suppose that partner simply didn't think he had to alert. In this case, he could still have the major-containing hand, and I have to alert. Partner's non-alert would seldom be of any importance, but mine would often be. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 28 01:25:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3RFOUL15058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:24:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3RFOMt15008 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:24:24 +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 14tA6U-000Hqw-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:24:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:19:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> 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 , Roger Pewick writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Anne Jones >To: BLML >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 3:37 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn > > >| >| ----- Original Message ----- >| From: "Roger Pewick" >| To: "blml" >| Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 7:02 PM >| Subject: [BLML] claiming out of turn >| >| >| > >| > 2 >| > 2 >| > 32 >| > void >| > >| > 3 void >| > void JT9 >| > KQJ A >| > Void void >| > >| > Void >| > AKQ >| > T >| > void >| > >| > The contract is NT, lead is in the south [declarer]. Declarer >calls >| > for dummy's spade, played. RHO is scratching his head for a few >| > seconds and declarer then says 'I have the rest, taking three >hearts.' I think it is fundamental that declarer's claim does *not* deny the opponents their rights to penalise an infraction already committed (as opposed to one that is part of the claim statement). Accordingly the LOOT stands if the opponents wish it to. Given the head scratching it is clear that East is considering an unblock, and no-one has yet decided whether or not to accept the LOOT. This falls within the context of "doubtful points resolved against claimer". I have no hesitation in awarding 4 tricks to the defence. Had the claim been "Leading the spade and winning 3 more hearts" I'd have awarded 3 tricks to declarer, as the claim breaks down immediately. I'd be certain that in the games I run that any other ruling would be put down as "another 'Probst bum ruling'". Perhaps one day I shall publish some of these :)) -- 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 Apr 28 02:03:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3RG2qU28697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 02:02:52 +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 f3RG2jt28659 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 02:02:46 +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 JAA25899; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:02:42 -0700 Message-Id: <200104271602.JAA25899@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:19:10 BST." Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:02:41 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > >| > >| > > >| > 2 > >| > 2 > >| > 32 > >| > void > >| > > >| > 3 void > >| > void JT9 > >| > KQJ A > >| > Void void > >| > > >| > Void > >| > AKQ > >| > T > >| > void > >| > > >| > The contract is NT, lead is in the south [declarer]. Declarer > >calls > >| > for dummy's spade, played. RHO is scratching his head for a few > >| > seconds and declarer then says 'I have the rest, taking three > >hearts.' > > I think it is fundamental that declarer's claim does *not* deny the > opponents their rights to penalise an infraction already committed (as > opposed to one that is part of the claim statement). Accordingly the > LOOT stands if the opponents wish it to. > > Given the head scratching it is clear that East is considering an > unblock, and no-one has yet decided whether or not to accept the LOOT. > This falls within the context of "doubtful points resolved against > claimer". I have no hesitation in awarding 4 tricks to the defence. I think this is fine, but . . . > Had the claim been "Leading the spade and winning 3 more hearts" I'd > have awarded 3 tricks to declarer, as the claim breaks down immediately. I don't understand this one. In fact, I don't think the claim statement has any bearing on the correct ruling here. Declarer *already* led the S2 (this is a played card, not part of the claim), and the result is that the defense can always take the rest if they accept the LOOT and defend correctly. Declarer's play has become irrelevant. Therefore, the claim statement, which indicates how declarer intends to play the rest of his cards, must also be irrelevant. 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 Sat Apr 28 02:41:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3RGfFx12424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 02:41:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3RGf8t12384 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 02:41:09 +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 14tBIm-000Jhm-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:41:04 +0000 Message-ID: <79G+YGCK$Z66Ew0r@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:35:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn References: <200104271602.JAA25899@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200104271602.JAA25899@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 <200104271602.JAA25899@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes snip >> Given the head scratching it is clear that East is considering an >> unblock, and no-one has yet decided whether or not to accept the LOOT. >> This falls within the context of "doubtful points resolved against >> claimer". I have no hesitation in awarding 4 tricks to the defence. > >I think this is fine, but . . . > >> Had the claim been "Leading the spade and winning 3 more hearts" I'd >> have awarded 3 tricks to declarer, as the claim breaks down immediately. > >I don't understand this one. In fact, I don't think the claim >statement has any bearing on the correct ruling here. Declarer >*already* led the S2 (this is a played card, not part of the claim), >and the result is that the defense can always take the rest if they >accept the LOOT and defend correctly. Declarer's play has become >irrelevant. Therefore, the claim statement, which indicates how >declarer intends to play the rest of his cards, must also be >irrelevant. Right? Indeed. But I was pointing out that _had the scenario been_ a claim before any cards were played at trick 10, then my ruling would be different. > > -- 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 Apr 28 07:52:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3RLpmj16041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 07:51:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net ([195.40.1.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3RLpft16037 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 07:51:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-110.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.110]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id CCD3822E089 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:51:30 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:48:37 +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 >John (MadDog) Probst (Fri 27 Apr 2001 16:19) writes: >>Roger Pewick writes >>| > 2 >>| > 2 >>| > 32 >>| > void >>| > >>| > 3 void >>| > void JT9 >>| > KQJ A >>| > Void void >>| > >>| > Void >>| > AKQ >>| > T >>| > void >>| > >>| > The contract is NT, lead is in the south [declarer]. Declarer >>calls >>| > for dummy's spade, played. RHO is scratching his head for a few >>| > seconds and declarer then says 'I have the rest, taking three >>hearts.' > >I think it is fundamental that declarer's claim does *not* deny the >opponents their rights to penalise an infraction already committed (as >opposed to one that is part of the claim statement). Accordingly the >LOOT stands if the opponents wish it to. > >Given the head scratching it is clear that East is considering an >unblock, I don't think you can reasonably infer this. He is quite likely simply to be considering the implications of the LOOT and whether or not he should be accepting it. >and no-one has yet decided whether or not to accept the LOOT. >This falls within the context of "doubtful points resolved against >claimer". I have no hesitation in awarding 4 tricks to the defence. > >Had the claim been "Leading the spade and winning 3 more hearts" I'd >have awarded 3 tricks to declarer, as the claim breaks down immediately. So if declarer calls for the S2 and a nano-second or two later he tables his hand claiming three heart tricks, you will either award him 3 or 0 tricks depending on whether or not you consider the lead part of his claim? On this basis, he could call for the S2, realise his mistake and quickly incorporate the play in a claim to cancel the effect of his LOOT. On the problem as stated, the defence are clearly entitled to the benefit of accepting the LOOT and the only question to be determined is whether East would have found the DA unblock. IMO if there was any chance of him finding it, and there clearly was, it is a doubtful point to be resolved in favour of the non-claimants. Thus - four tricks to the defence. If instead declarer had said at trick 10 "leading the spade and winning 3 more hearts", I would rule the same way. The claim has not "broken down" it merely contains an irregularity. So what? L70 is drawn (deliberately?) quite widely, the TD being charged with "adjudicating the result as equitably as possible", etc. In my book this means basing the result on what is likely to have happened if the claimer had played the hand in accordance with his claim statement. 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 Sat Apr 28 10:16:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3S0FRk16118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:15:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3S0FKt16114 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:15:20 +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 14tIOK-0008pa-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:15:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:59:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn 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 >>John (MadDog) Probst (Fri 27 Apr 2001 16:19) writes: >>>Roger Pewick writes >>>| > 2 >>>| > 2 >>>| > 32 >>>| > void >>>| > >>>| > 3 void >>>| > void JT9 >>>| > KQJ A >>>| > Void void >>>| > >>>| > Void >>>| > AKQ >>>| > T >>>| > void >>>| > >>>| > The contract is NT, lead is in the south [declarer]. Declarer >>>calls >>>| > for dummy's spade, played. RHO is scratching his head for a few >>>| > seconds and declarer then says 'I have the rest, taking three >>>hearts.' >> >>I think it is fundamental that declarer's claim does *not* deny the >>opponents their rights to penalise an infraction already committed (as >>opposed to one that is part of the claim statement). Accordingly the >>LOOT stands if the opponents wish it to. >> >>Given the head scratching it is clear that East is considering an >>unblock, > >I don't think you can reasonably infer this. He is quite likely simply to >be considering the implications of the LOOT and whether or not he should be >accepting it. > >>and no-one has yet decided whether or not to accept the LOOT. >>This falls within the context of "doubtful points resolved against >>claimer". I have no hesitation in awarding 4 tricks to the defence. >> >>Had the claim been "Leading the spade and winning 3 more hearts" I'd >>have awarded 3 tricks to declarer, as the claim breaks down immediately. > >So if declarer calls for the S2 and a nano-second or two later he tables his >hand claiming three heart tricks, you will either award him 3 or 0 tricks >depending on whether or not you consider the lead part of his claim? On >this basis, he could call for the S2, realise his mistake and quickly >incorporate the play in a claim to cancel the effect of his LOOT. > This is just sophistry. Either the player lead the S2 or he claimed before leading the S2. Do you think I don't know the difference and further that I don't even know *how* to find out the difference? >On the problem as stated, the defence are clearly entitled to the benefit of >accepting the LOOT and the only question to be determined is whether East >would have found the DA unblock. IMO if there was any chance of him >finding it, and there clearly was, it is a doubtful point to be resolved in >favour of the non-claimants. Thus - four tricks to the defence. > >If instead declarer had said at trick 10 "leading the spade and winning 3 >more hearts", I would rule the same way. The claim has not "broken down" it >merely contains an irregularity. That is not how the Law is to be interpreted. You fly in the face of the opinion passed down by the Lawmakers if you go your route. > So what? L70 is drawn (deliberately?) >quite widely, the TD being charged with "adjudicating the result as >equitably as possible", etc. In my book this means basing the result on >what is likely to have happened if the claimer had played the hand in >accordance with his claim statement. > >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 Sun Apr 29 00:56:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3SEslP17503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:54:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3SEsbt17447 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:54:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-100.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.100]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 677BC54D52 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:54:33 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:51:37 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >John (MadDog) Probst (Sat 28 Apr 2001 00:59) writes: >>Brambledown writes: >>>Roger Pewick writes: >>> 2 >>> 2 >>> 32 >>> void >>> >>> 3 void >>> void JT9 >>> KQJ A >>> void void >>> >>> void >>> AKQ >>> T >>> void >>> >>> The contract is NT, lead is in the south [declarer]. Let us be clear about this. Suppose that declarer calls for the S2 and then faces his hand, indicating that he will discard D10 on this trick and that he has three good hearts. Now, if I understand you correctly, you will either decide the LOOT was made before the claim and award 0 tricks to declarer or that it was part of the claim and award him 3 tricks. IMO this is neither sensible nor what the Laws appear to require. >>If instead declarer had said at trick 10 "leading the spade and winning 3 >>more hearts", I would rule the same way. The claim has not >>"broken down" it merely contains an irregularity. > >That is not how the Law is to be interpreted. You fly in the face of the >opinion passed down by the Lawmakers if you go your route. Opinion is not law and my reading of nearly 200 postings on this topic in the 'claiming a revoke' string suggests that there is a substantial body of opinion that disagrees with that view, at least in as far as a LOOT is concerned. I repeat that I believe "adjudicating the result as equitably as possible" (L70) should mean basing the result on what is likely to have happened if the claimer had played or tried to play the hand in accordance with his claim statement. Of course, this may well still leave me with unresolved problems - but not on this hand. 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 Apr 29 02:23:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3SGLZK17523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 02:21:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe18.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3SGLSt17488 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 02:21:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:21:21 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.54.104.185] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:52:49 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Apr 2001 16:21:21.0578 (UTC) FILETIME=[431A48A0:01C0CFFF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Once a claim is made it is either accepted and the claimed tricks are scored or it is contested and adjudicated. In a contested claim the adjudicated line must be legal plays. A contested claim made mid trick includes that trick, and hence must be adjudicated in accordance with L70 whether or not it included irregularities. Now consider the case, first as if there was no claim. Declarer led the S2 believing it was a winner when it was not. The outcome clearly will be that the defense will achieve 2 or 4 tricks depending on what card E plays to the trick, assuming he accepts the LOOT. Here he is entitled to redress for the infraction. But, if the lead really was in dummy, it would be a non issue, would it not? However, at the point of a claim, T10 is a claimed trick, not a trick won in play. If the claim is accepted declarer scores all four tricks. If it is contested and the director finds as fact that there was a LOOT, it must be canceled because the adjudicated line must include only legal plays and clearly, when a LOOT is made it is an illegal play. . I believe that Anne Jones felt that it is important to resolve a trick in progress [at the time of a claim] as if the claim picks up at the end of the trick. I too think this is sensible. However, knowledgeable people assert the law emphatically says otherwise. When John Probst says that when a contested claim is made mid trick as in there was a LOOT that the player has the right to accept the LOOT. And when he says that it is in accordance with law it is as if he is saying that two masses can occupy the same space at the same time. I believe that physicists call this condition The Big Bang. As appealing as John's view is, it is in conflict with the requirement that the adjudicated line must not contain irregularities. I think it is sensible that an adjudicated line not include irregularities. But to have it so it must be sensible that a trick in progress be concluded as in play so as not to deprive the other side to benefit from claimer's irregularities in play and still be consistent with the principle. And to be a bit off topic, I do not think it is sensible that a claim and its clarification are different animals. A claim is, if anything, a curtailment of play and it consists of any and all of the parts present. They need to be one so as to make it clear what the claim is for. This is what is sensible. regards roger pewick ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn | In article , Roger Pewick | writes | > | >----- Original Message ----- | >From: Anne Jones | >To: BLML | >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 3:37 AM | >Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn | >| ----- Original Message ----- | >| From: "Roger Pewick" | >| To: "blml" | >| Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 7:02 PM | >| Subject: [BLML] claiming out of turn | >| > 2 | >| > 2 | >| > 32 | >| > void | >| > | >| > 3 void | >| > void JT9 | >| > KQJ A | >| > Void void | >| > | >| > Void | >| > AKQ | >| > T | >| > void | >| > The contract is NT, lead is in the south [declarer]. Declarer | >| > calls | >| > for dummy's spade, played. RHO is scratching his head for a few | >| > seconds and declarer then says 'I have the rest, taking three | >hearts.' | I think it is fundamental that declarer's claim does *not* deny the | opponents their rights to penalise an infraction already committed But fundamentally, it does deny. Play stops immediately and therefore there can be no application of a play penalty as there is no more play. | (as | opposed to one that is part of the claim statement). Accordingly the | LOOT stands if the opponents wish it to. | | Given the head scratching it is clear that East is considering an | unblock, and no-one has yet decided whether or not to accept the LOOT. | This falls within the context of "doubtful points resolved against | claimer". I have no hesitation in awarding 4 tricks to the defence. | | Had the claim been "Leading the spade and winning 3 more hearts" I'd | have awarded 3 tricks to declarer, as the claim breaks down immediately. | | I'd be certain that in the games I run that any other ruling would be | put down as "another 'Probst bum ruling'". Perhaps one day I shall | publish some of these :)) | | -- | John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 29 03:52:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3SHp6T01910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 03:51:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3SHp0t01906 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 03:51:01 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 9EF068EC3; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:50:56 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:50:21 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 2:51 PM +0200 4/23/01, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >West, forgetting either his system or the fact that he had already passed, >explained 2S as 5 spades, 4+ minor. >Also, he answered 3C, which after his pass should have been fit-showing >(typically 5C/3S), while he thought it was P/C (which it would be without >the initial pass). East explained 3C as fit-showing. This is an enlightening case - thanks for bringing it up! East has UI, but as you point out he had no logical alternative to his Pass so there's no basis for adjustment there. The MI that West provided did potentially cause damage. The key is that with correct information NS would have reason to believe that West had misbid. So, depending on the actual NS hands I would adjust according to 12C2. As I've written before, I believe the intent of the law is and ought to be to let NS know the relevant parts of EW's system as well as if NS played it themselves. If NS were intimately familiar with the EW methods then NS would realize from West's explanation that he had misunderstood the auction and NS could act on that basis. AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 29 07:17:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3SLHAX03967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 07:17:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f259.law14.hotmail.com [64.4.20.134]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3SLH4t03963 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 07:17:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 14:16:56 -0700 Received: from 137.229.8.104 by lw14fd.law14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:16:56 GMT X-Originating-IP: [137.229.8.104] From: "Michael Schmahl" To: axman22@hotmail.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:16:56 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Apr 2001 21:16:56.0830 (UTC) FILETIME=[8E22F9E0:01C0D028] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Roger Pewick" >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:52:49 -0500 > >Once a claim is made it is either accepted and the claimed tricks are >scored or it is contested and adjudicated. > >In a contested claim the adjudicated line must be legal plays. > >A contested claim made mid trick includes that trick, and hence must >be adjudicated in accordance with L70 whether or not it included >irregularities. > >Now consider the case, first as if there was no claim. > >Declarer led the S2 believing it was a winner when it was not. The >outcome clearly will be that the defense will achieve 2 or 4 tricks >depending on what card E plays to the trick, assuming he accepts the >LOOT. Here he is entitled to redress for the infraction. But, if >the lead really was in dummy, it would be a non issue, would it not? > >However, at the point of a claim, T10 is a claimed trick, not a trick >won in play. If the claim is accepted declarer scores all four >tricks. If it is contested and the director finds as fact that there >was a LOOT, it must be canceled because the adjudicated line must >include only legal plays and clearly, when a LOOT is made it is an >illegal play. . > >I believe that Anne Jones felt that it is important to resolve a trick >in progress [at the time of a claim] as if the claim picks up at the >end of the trick. I too think this is sensible. However, >knowledgeable people assert the law emphatically says otherwise. > But what you are suggestion amounts to something very similar -- adjudicating the result as if the claim picks up at the beginning of the trick. For sake of argument, I'll agree that "In a contested claim the adjudicated line must be legal plays." However, the lead of the S2 is not part of the claim, even though the ownership of T10 is part of the claim. >From this point, East unblocking the DA is a legal play, anything from declarer's hand as the third card of the trick is a legal play, etc. So Probst's view of ruling 0 tricks to declarer (but 3 tricks if declarer had claimed before actually leading S2 to T10 from the wrong hand) is still in accordance with the stated principle. Also, East not accepting the lead, and the trick starting over with declarer on lead is also a legal set of plays, but doubt is resolved against the claimer. Surely you would not contend that if East had actually unblocked the DA, and declarer claimed three tricks before playing to the trick, that he would get three tricks after all? Yet this is the logical conclusion of your position, since, after all, T10 in that case would not yet be completed and yet contain an irregularity. >When John Probst says that when a contested claim is made mid trick as >in there was a LOOT that the player has the right to accept the LOOT. >And when he says that it is in accordance with law it is as if he is >saying that two masses can occupy the same space at the same time. I >believe that physicists call this condition The Big Bang. > >As appealing as John's view is, it is in conflict with the requirement >that the adjudicated line must not contain irregularities. I think >it is sensible that an adjudicated line not include irregularities. >But to have it so it must be sensible that a trick in progress be >concluded as in play so as not to deprive the other side to benefit >from claimer's irregularities in play and still be consistent with the >principle. And to be a bit off topic, I do not think it is sensible >that a claim and its clarification are different animals. A claim is, >if anything, a curtailment of play and it consists of any and all of >the parts present. They need to be one so as to make it clear what >the claim is for. This is what is sensible. > >regards >roger pewick > >----- Original Message ----- [s] _________________________________________________________________ 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 Apr 29 10:49:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3T0j6Q28704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 10:45:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3T0j0t28700 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 10:45:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f3T0gpu19635; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:42:51 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:36:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling Cc: Adam Wildavsky Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The MI that West provided did potentially cause damage. The key is >that with correct information NS would have reason to believe that >West had misbid. So, depending on the actual NS hands I would adjust >according to 12C2. 12C2 tells you *how* to adjust. But my question here is *when* do we adjust? The footnote to Law 75, in discussing mistaken explanations, says "when this infraction results in damage to East-West [it would be North-south in our case], the Director shall award an adjusted score". It doesn't say to adjust if there *might* have been damage. If in fact there was damage, then fine, adjust. But I think you have to determine if there was, not just if there might have been. 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/AwUBOutkCr2UW3au93vOEQKcjACeP0QSCANjk7TQZSd3i4JyDfsAE3sAoLzj J62B1FU/bw5IYRvc3WBbUZQL =9Vc1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 29 11:21:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3T1LUi28727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:21:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3T1LOt28723 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:21:24 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 970F88ECC; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:20:59 -0400 To: Ed Reppert From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling Cc: Bridge Laws Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 8:36 PM -0400 4/28/01, Ed Reppert wrote: >12C2 tells you *how* to adjust. But my question here is *when* do we >adjust? The footnote to Law 75, in discussing mistaken explanations, >says "when this infraction results in damage to East-West [it would >be North-south in our case], the Director shall award an adjusted >score". It doesn't say to adjust if there *might* have been damage. >If in fact there was damage, then fine, adjust. But I think you have >to determine if there was, not just if there might have been. We've been through this on BLML before. Here's how I see it: Damage exists if the NOS could have achieved a better score than they achieved at the table. If there's MI but no damage, then there's no possibility of adjustment. Per the "Scope", "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." Law 40C tells us that in order to adjust the damage must be related to the MI. Once we judge, as here, that the damage is related to the MI then we proceed to 12C2. 12C2 tells us both how and when to adjust. NS will receive the most favorable result that was likely had they not received misinformation. If that is the same as the result they achieved at the table then in effect their score is not adjusted. Likewise EW receive the most unfavorable result that was at all probable absent the MI, which may or may be be the score they achieved at the table. If I need to clarify this chain of reasoning please help me discover where. AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 29 17:04:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3T71Fj01745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:01:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3T716t01696 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:01:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-83.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.83]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3T710n20162 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:01:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AE9761D.E5BF33CC@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:37:33 +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] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010424164250.0082f800@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010425164810.007f6ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3AE7DFA3.3572B064@village.uunet.be> <001b01c0ceb6$276d0600$8358063e@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20010427141100.00834100@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: > > >I believe that cases where the player knows that this > >particular piece of agreement is clearly spelt out on page > >23 of system notes that he has with him and that he is > >certain the TD and AC will accept, are white ravens. > > AG : I've a feeling that I could be a good white raven trainer. What I mean is this, Alain, when your partner explains something in a different manner than what you intended, are you always so sure of yourself - has it never turned out wrong after all ? Anyway, we are not discussing frequency here, we are discussing provability. Maybe "white raven" is an overstatement, but there are lots of cases where you simply don't know if the TD will accept your statement "partner got it wrong, I've got it right". Besides, you may well hope that partner got it right, and you got it wrong. The DwS is often used when the player making the second explanation is certain about his system. But quite often he is not certain. Sometimes he is convinced that partner has given the correct explanation. We need to give advice in all three cases. The advice about how to bid is always the same "as if you had not heard partner's explanation". Why should the advice not also be the same in the question "how to explain his next bid" - I say : "according to the system he is apparently using". > Because, if > system notes are well written, they should contain everything an opponent > or TD would want to know ; and mine do. And quite frankly, I feel that it's > the _black_ ravens that are wrong. In Lille, even for pairs tournaments, > complementatry notes to the CC were compulsory for every non-obvious > convention ; isn't this generalized ? Anyway, you could put more pressure, > on the tones of : either you can prove it, or you will be deemed wrong. > Want to bet that more and more people will have their notes at hand ? > I've always said this to all Belgian players, and you're still the only one with system notes. > >> Certainly, having given the correct > >> explanation, it is proper to add the > >> knowledge gained from experience of > >> partner's past mistakes, but as has > >> been said, this information is UI to the > >> explainer. ~ Grattan ~ > >> > > > >Yes, we know that, and it is of absolutely no importance to > >the discussion at hand. > > AG : there are cases where the application of DwS principles would be more > hazardous. Let's consider this quite common case : > > pass 1S > 2C 2D > > Where the pair plays some form of Drury, and 2C was not alerted. Should > West alert 2D, and what should he explain ? > > This all depends of the reason why East did not alert. There can be many : > 1) he forgot he was 3rd-in-hand > 2) he forgot they are playing Drury > 3) he simply forgot to alert, because he was concentrating on his response > 4) he alerted, but West didn't notice it, because he too was concentrating > on his next bid > > So, the UI caused by East's non-alert is quite mild. I would even say there is no UI to speak of. > Unless East is much more prone to be in situations # 1 or 2 (knowledge of > this particular East helps, of course), I would, as West, assume he simply > forgot to alert, alert his 2D, and explain it as whatever a 2D response to > 2C is. If, in doing so, I create UI in cases 1 or 2, and if the TD rules > against me based on this UI, too bad. He is right. But the mess caused by > not alerting 2D (which would be right, according to the DwS) I agree that this is a difficult case. My advice would be to assume that partner had forgotten to alert. But that is secondary to the main argument. What is your advice if partner is asked (I realize, incorrectly) "don't you play Drury" and replies "no !". > is worse (and > not alerting is an infraction, and doing it deliberately is a serious > offense). Well, this "deliberacy" is the main problem. What is worse : deliberately misinforming the opponents about the system or deliberately misinforming the opponents about the hands. And don't forget that you are deliberately breaking 75D2. S: 2Di W: "what is 2Cl?" S: "natural" W: "not drury?" S: "no" W: "what is 2Di?" N: "negative response to Drury" L75D2 anyone ? Besides deliberately misinforming opponents about the diamond length in south, that is ! > In fact, if I was West, # 4 could well be the right explanation. > > And, of course, in some cases, there is always to consider #5 : partner > knew the bid was not purely natural, but didn't deem it alertable (remember > this jurisprudency about screens : the fact that one partner alerts and the > other not is not per se MI, because there might be diverging opinions). > For example, we earlier discussed whether, when playing Walsh, 1C-1D should > be alerted. Let's assume East doesn't alert 1D, and that he should have. > Now West thinks East has forgotten they were playing Walsh, and doesn't > alert the 1NT rebid ? This is what the DwS would ask for, if 1D was indeed > alertable. But I would be prone to suppose that partner simply didn't think > he had to alert. In this case, he could still have the major-containing > hand, and I have to alert. Partner's non-alert would seldom be of any > importance, but mine would often be. > > Alerting problems confound issues, but they are only alerting problems. The same problems confound other issues as well, but we don't throw them out. I would offer as advice when the only problem is a (small) alerting error to consider correct information given and assume alerting error. (except in clear cases like where a 3Cl ghestem is not alerted). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 29 22:45:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3TCiqU11427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:44:52 +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.link.net (mail.link.net [213.131.64.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3TCijt11422 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:44:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from link.net ([65.199.128.118]) by mail.link.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:44:39 +0200 Message-ID: <3AEC1C38.F6605451@link.net> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:50:48 +0200 From: "S.S" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello all Do splinters still require alerts, and for example: 1S 2N (Jacoby) 4H 4H-showing a void, requires one ? Where can I find a complete and detailed new alert chart, thank you for your help. Sandra -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 30 03:45:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3THghv07661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 03:42:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta05-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3THgat07621 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 03:42:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta05-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.03.02.00 201-232-124 license f747fce8063b429e7fcd66ee14ce8c58) with SMTP id <20010429174453.QUVK6697.amsmta05-svc@witz> for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:44:53 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: a.witzen/mail.chello.nl@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:43:08 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: <3AEC1C38.F6605451@link.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk depends on in which country (zone) you live) in holland it isnt allowed to alert beyond 3NT but in other countries other styles reign. You can ask this to your NCBO regards, anton At 03:50 PM 29-04-01 +0200, you wrote: >Hello all > >Do splinters still require alerts, and for example: > >1S 2N (Jacoby) >4H > >4H-showing a void, requires one ? > >Where can I find a complete and detailed new alert chart, thank >you for your help. > >Sandra > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mon Apr 30 06:50:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3TKnKi11844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 06:49:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.link.net (mail.link.net [213.131.64.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3TKnDt11840 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 06:49:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from link.net ([65.199.128.140]) by mail.link.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:49:02 +0200 Message-ID: <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:55:49 +0200 From: "S.S" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anton Witzen CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What if it is an international event, what laws apply ? There must be some international law, or am I wrong ? Sandra Anton Witzen wrote: > depends on in which country (zone) you live) > in holland it isnt allowed to alert beyond 3NT > but in other countries other styles reign. > You can ask this to your NCBO > regards, > anton > > At 03:50 PM 29-04-01 +0200, you wrote: > >Hello all > > > >Do splinters still require alerts, and for example: > > > >1S 2N (Jacoby) > >4H > > > >4H-showing a void, requires one ? > > > >Where can I find a complete and detailed new alert chart, thank > >you for your help. > > > >Sandra > > > >-- > >======================================================================== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 30 07:58:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3TLw8X25503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:58:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3TLw1t25499 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:58:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-118-192.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.1.118.192] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3TLvmH09945; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:57:49 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001801c0d0f7$647a2580$c07601d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "S.S" , "Anton Witzen" Cc: References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:55:54 +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 To: Anton Witzen Cc: Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure > What if it is an international event, what laws apply ? > There must be some international law, or am I wrong ? > > > Sandra > +=+ The international authorities make it clear that their alerting regulations apply to their events only and that organisations, NBOs, Zones, must issue their own alerting regulations. For the European Bridge League Championships the 4H bid on a void is alertable. In the World Bridge Federation regulations the 4H bid is not to be alerted if playing without screens but is alertable if playing with screens. ~ 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 Apr 30 08:37:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3TMb6H25528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 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 rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3TMb1t25524 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:37:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.156.237] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14tzoG-0005Du-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:36:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c0d0fc$c9674c20$ed9c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:36:06 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > What if it is an international event, what laws apply ? > There must be some international law, or am I wrong ? > > > Sandra International events are played with screens. The alerting regulations are contained in the Conditions of Contest for each event. The WBF Alerting Policy appears below, to give you some idea. As you can see, it is somewhat brief. David Burn London, England [From the Preamble] Players are expected to alert whenever there is doubt. [Policy] The following classes of calls should be alerted: (a) Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. (A Convention is a call that serves by partnership agreement to convey a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named.) (b) Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization). See Law 40(b). (c) Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and non-forcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit. The following calls should not be alerted, except when screens are in use: (a) all doubles (b) any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract (c) all bids, with the exception of conventional opening suit bids, at the four level or higher. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 30 10:03:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3U02gX25575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:02:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3U02Zt25571 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:02:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-68-140.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.68.140]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3U02OH25249; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 01:02:25 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <004201c0d108$cc7f1d00$c07601d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Brambledown" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 01:01:00 +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 To: BLML Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn > >John (MadDog) Probst (Sat 28 Apr 2001 00:59) writes: > >>Brambledown writes: > >>>Roger Pewick writes: > >>> 2 > >>> 2 > >>> 32 > >>> void > >>> > >>> 3 void > >>> void JT9 > >>> KQJ A > >>> void void > >>> > >>> void > >>> AKQ > >>> T > >>> void > >>> > >>> The contract is NT, lead is in the south [declarer]. > > Let us be clear about this. Suppose that declarer > calls for the S2 and then faces his hand, indicating > that he will discard D10 on this trick and that he has > three good hearts. > +=+ I have no recollection of confronting this position in any appeal or committee. My comments now express a personal approach. It seems to me that the play of S2 was made prior to the point of claim. It is an irregularity of which (81C6) the Director will become aware when called to the table. I would expect him to rule that the S2 is played and that the right to accept or require retraction (55A) is not removed by the subsequent claim. East or West will exercise the option. The claim has occurred before East has played to the trick and there can be no more play. The Director will resolve the claim from the point of claim, having established that the S2 lead is accepted or not. If, as might be the case, West has opted to accept the S2 lead, the Director may find that whether East would play his Ace to the trick is a doubtful point to be ruled against the player who has claimed. If it came to an AC like that, I can see no basis for overturning the Director's ruling. I might have some question in my mind whether Declarer is a clever guy who has looked for a quick exit after realising what he has done. ~ 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 Apr 30 17:05:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3U74jF25606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:04:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3U74ct25601 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:04:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-40-252.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.40.252] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3U74TH29475 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:04:29 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001301c0d143$c388a460$da3f7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <000501c0d0fc$c9674c20$ed9c7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:03:28 +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 To: Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 11:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure > > What if it is an international event, what laws apply ? > > There must be some international law, or am I wrong ? > > > > > > Sandra > > International events are played with screens. The alerting regulations > are contained in the Conditions of Contest for each event. The WBF > Alerting Policy appears below, to give you some idea. As you can see, it > is somewhat brief. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ For brevity consider the European Bridge League's regulation for the Open and Ladies' teams, screens being invariably in use: " Any call which (i) has a special or artificial meaning, or (ii) which has a partnership meaning that may not be understoof by opponents, is a call that must be brought to the immediate attention of opponents through the use of the 'alert procedure'. " For the Ladies' Pairs in Tenerife the same brevity is avoided; the regulation incorporates all the text of the WBF Policy - so 4H would only be alerted if playing with screens. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 30 18:37:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3U8b8Z25657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:37:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3U8b2t25653 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:37:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-211.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.211]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3U8avq26234 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:36:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AEBC876.BADD7C97@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:53:26 +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] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@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 Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > > This is an enlightening case - thanks for bringing it up! > > East has UI, but as you point out he had no logical alternative to > his Pass so there's no basis for adjustment there. > > The MI that West provided did potentially cause damage. The key is > that with correct information NS would have reason to believe that > West had misbid. So, depending on the actual NS hands I would adjust > according to 12C2. > > As I've written before, I believe the intent of the law is and ought > to be to let NS know the relevant parts of EW's system as well as if > NS played it themselves. If NS were intimately familiar with the EW > methods then NS would realize from West's explanation that he had > misunderstood the auction and NS could act on that basis. > You are right Adam, except on one point. If NS are intimately aware of EW's system, then they don't need an alert and an explanation and there is not reason they would realize that west had misunderstood East. So that piece of information is not "entitled". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 30 20:37:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UAZ7p25722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:35:07 +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-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 f3UAYmt25714 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:34:50 +1000 (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 14uB0t-00018t-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:34:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:31:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> In-Reply-To: <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk S.S writes >What if it is an international event, what laws apply ? >There must be some international law, or am I wrong ? There are international Laws, but alerting is not a matter of Law. It is a matter of regulation, and thus can and is different in different jurisdictions. David Burn has shown you the WBF alerting regulations. They are pretty simple, but only apply in WBF events [and one or two other places that follow the same regulations, eg the Carribean]. So, if you want to find the answer to your question in WBF events, then David's post gives the answer: if you want to know the answer in your own country, then you will have to tell us which country that 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 Apr 30 20:37:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UAYwW25721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:34:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3UAYmt25713 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:34:50 +1000 (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 14uB0t-00018s-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:34:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:30:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes > >Once a claim is made it is either accepted and the claimed tricks are >scored or it is contested and adjudicated. > >In a contested claim the adjudicated line must be legal plays. Why? Which Law says this? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 30 20:55:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UAruJ25745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:53:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3UArnt25741 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:53:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-202.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.202]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3UAriq04357 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:53:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AED422E.F2503AC3@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:45:02 +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] DwS on Alain's case revisited Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Over the weekend I've had some time to think about Alain's case. Remember : 2Sp (by East) was erroneously explained as 5Sp-4mi, where it should be 4Sp-4mi, since it was in third hand. The response of 3Cl (by West) systematically shows 5Cl+3Sp, but in the eyes of West (who has forgotten the exception), it shows Cl+Di. I am commenting on the hypothetical case, where Alain realizes the mistake his partner has made and realizes it is Cl+Di. (in reality, Alain did not realize this). What is the situation for NS. NS are entitled to know that East has shown only 4 Spades. NS are not entitled to know that West thinks there are 5 of them. However, West tells this to NS, and it is authorized information. NS are entitled to know that 3Cl should show Cl+Sp. NS are not entitled to know that West has forgotten this. So far I suppose we all agree. Now I want to add one single extra piece of ruling, to which I hope you might also agree : NS are entitled to know that over a first hand opening of 2Sp, 3Cl shows Cl+Di. Well, I don't think you would disagree with this, but I suppose you fail to see the relevance of it. I would like to deduce from this : NS are not entitled to know that West has made a mistake, but they are entitled to know the erroneous system after the mistake. It follows that, if they do know of the mistake (AI to them), they should also know of the subsequent system. It should follow that NS are entitled to know that West is showing Cl+Di. What I'm saying is this : opponents are not entitled to know that a player has made a mistake, but they are entitled to know the system, both without and with the mistake. If they do not know of the mistake, they are not entitled to the resulting knowledge of the hand. But if they do know of the mistake (AI to them), then they are also entitled to the resulting knowledge of the hand. Which brings me back to the DwS position : NS are entitled to know that West has shown clubs and diamonds. NS are also entitled to know that West's bid systemically shows clubs and spades, but they have no use for this knowledge. If E explains the systemic meaning, he is breaking L75D. So while a full explanation is : "systemically, he has shown clubs and spades, but in the erroneous system he is apparently playing, he is showing clubs and diamonds" the shorter version : "clubs and diamonds" is just as useful to NS, and not in contravention of L75D. OK ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/