From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 01:20:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UFJxc20702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 01:19:59 +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 f3UFJot20658 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 01:19:51 +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 RAA10964; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:19:43 +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 RAA26081; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:19:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010430172307.00832a20@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:23:07 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS on Alain's case revisited In-Reply-To: <3AED422E.F2503AC3@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 12:45 30/04/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Over the weekend I've had some time to think about Alain's >case. > >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. AG : Herman is right here. But I don't think the knowledge of the real spade holdings in E/W hands would enable North to bid his spade suit. After all, East *could* have 5 spades, and West 2 ! The correct ruling could then very well be 3NT by North (the most favorable likely contract for them), making 9 tricks (this is not sure, but assume the favorable result). The problem is that North will score under average. How can you explain this to them ? Perhaps you could say : 'afteer East's opening, you were always going to miss your spade fit. So, I adjust to 3NT =, because I must care of equity regarding what would have happened, absent the infraction, at the moment the infraction occurred. So, because the infraction is posterior to the opening, the destructive effects of the opening should be taken for granted.' Is this right ? >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" AG : okay, if I realized what happened, this would probably have been the best explanation. And it takes care of both cases, and it entitles them to all information they need. It is even better than the strict DwS answer, because if you are wrong and partner really has spades cum clubs, you have said it. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 01:22:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UFMKb21528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 01:22:20 +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 f3UFMDt21488 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 01:22:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from link.net ([213.131.74.131]) by mail.link.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:22:01 +0200 Message-ID: <3AED92C1.FB8281D1@link.net> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:28:49 +0200 From: "S.S" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Egypt. That's one part of the question. The other, concerns online gaming. What regulations would be applied then, would each online club have it's own set of regulations, or would there be a more general approach. This leads to the online bridge Olympiad, is it a stand alone event ? Sandra David Stevenson wrote: > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 02:05:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UG3x106348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:03:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3UG3qt06310 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:03:52 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 1EAF54877F; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3AEBC876.BADD7C97@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3AEBC876.BADD7C97@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:03:36 -0400 To: Herman De Wael 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 9:53 AM +0200 4/29/01, Herman De Wael wrote: >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". Somehow I never tire of hearing that I'm right. Perhaps that's because I don't hear it often! As to the one point, my theory of the law here is just that, a theory. While I believe it to be correct, no theory overrides the facts. West has already provided MI - we cannot ignore it. If you're not convinced on the legal merits consider the public policy implications. My interpretation would provide an incentive for pairs to know the methods they are playing and explain them correctly. Surely that's not a bad thing! AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 02:07:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UG6G507151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:06:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3UG65t07088 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:06:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-36-206.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.36.206]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3UG5uH11164 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:05:56 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:05:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 30 April 2001 11:30 Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn > Roger Pewick writes > > > >In a contested claim the adjudicated line must be > > legal plays. > > Why? Which Law says this? > +=+ Wrong question, really. The question is what is the Director to do when there is an objection to a claim, there is an irregularity embodied in the statement of clarification, Law 70 gives him no powers to apply penalties that would apply in play, and any conceptual play that he substitutes must be 'normal' (an illegal play not being 'normal'). It may be that it would have helped everyone if the answer had been given expressly in the law, but EK held the view that if there is doubt the legislators' intentions must be honoured in the interpretation, a view with which David is commonly in conflict. It is wearisome when David returns persistently to his mangonel, and a little sad that bored colleagues are now saying to me that his stones no longer have their attention. ~ 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 May 1 02:07:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UG6Fl07144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:06:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3UG64t07080 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:06:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-36-206.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.36.206]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f3UG5tH11143 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:05:55 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001e01c0d18f$71474ac0$ce247bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus><3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:21:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 30 April 2001 11:31 Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure > S.S writes > >What if it is an international event, > > what laws apply ? > >There must be some international > > law, or am I wrong ? > -------------------- \x/ ------------------- > 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. > +=+ Well, no...... you must go to your NBO for the answer to the question. This mailing list is unofficial and cannot substitute for the answer from the proper authority. ~ 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 May 1 02:18:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UGISw11404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:18:28 +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 f3UGILt11370 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:18:22 +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 f3UGJNV05887 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004a01c0d191$2496ce60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3AEC1C38.F6605451@link.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:11:02 -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 > Hello all Hello Sandra! I'll assume you are referring to ACBL regulations. > > Do splinters still require alerts,? Yes. Immediate Alert only at the three level, or responder's first bid. and for example: > > 1S 2N (Jacoby) > 4H > > 4H-showing a void, requires one ? Yes, but not at this point in the auction. This bid requires a "Delayed Alert," (after the auction is over, but before the opening lead). > Where can I find a complete and detailed new alert chart, thank > you for your help. > Current, but not very new, ACBL Alert regulations can be viewed on David Stevenson's excellent web site (Item 10). While not an "official" version, it has been informally "blessed" by Gary Blaiss, ACBL Chief Tournament Director. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm#general 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 May 1 02:34:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UGXxD16811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:33:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe38.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3UGXqt16771 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:33:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:33:45 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.167.213] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:17:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2001 16:33:45.0403 (UTC) FILETIME=[534878B0:01C0D193] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 5:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn | 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 /\ /\ I cite L68D. Which means among other things: Quote- 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 ~ +=+ -Unquote To wit, in the case presented declarer proposed to win a spade trick by the illegal route of LOOT. It is irrelevant that the route was started before the proposal was made because the proposal relied upon, and thereby included, play which happened to be illegal. 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 May 1 03:18:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UHGcB01227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 03:16:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from c000.sfo.cp.net (c004-h000.c004.snv.cp.net [209.228.33.64]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f3UHGVt01198 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 03:16:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (cpmta 25672 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2001 10:16:15 -0700 Date: 30 Apr 2001 10:16:15 -0700 Message-ID: <20010430171615.25670.cpmta@c000.sfo.cp.net> X-Sent: 30 Apr 2001 17:16:15 GMT Received: from [64.230.150.196] by mail.dotcomnow.com with HTTP; 30 Apr 2001 10:16:15 PDT Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: qaqaqaq@dotcomnow.com X-Mailer: Web Mail 3.7.1.9 Subject: [BLML] Failure to Alert? and personal note Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk First - the machine where I read my mail has been down for the last two days, and isn't completely up yet (as you can tell). I'm catching up on BLML through the web gateway, but any messages sent to me personally are probably lost. Please resend (I can read mail, just not send right now). Now, for the weirdie of the Canadian National Teams 0-1000 Flight Zone II qualifier: All white, ACBL alerting rules in effect. AKQx xx 7xx T984 Pd RHO You LHO 1C 2NT 3D* p *intended as limit raise in clubs, not alerted 3NT% AP %before bidding, Pd asks what 2NT is, gets "I can't remember". Only CC available is on your side, and folded. Now, the auction is over. Neither the natural nor either Unusual 2NT is Alertable in the ACBL in this auction. 3D is systemically Unusual vs. Unusual if 2NT shows D+H, or a limit raise for clubs if 2NT is C+D; it is natural if 2NT is natural. Obviously, you assumed it was UvU - you've played with both opponents before - however, you didn't check the card, either, and they could be playing something different with each other. What, if anything are you required to do before the opening lead for this possible failure to Alert, possible misbid? Michael. P.S. We had a 12-card dummy (the DK was stuck to the DT, and was "played" with the DT). Seven tricks later (including a diamond trick), RHO asks "why are there only two cards in dummy?" Luckily I knew (at least where) the ruling (was), because the TD didn't - was going to give declarer a 1 trick revoke penalty (on top of the three tricks he lost by playing for the DK to be in opponents' hand). Also had an unusual, but I think fair, slow play penalty - after checking that the last board in a set was a bad result at the other table, she cancelled the board (this one pair had three late play warnings already, in 3 28-board sessions). mdf ------------------------------------------------- Get personalized e-mail and a web address or your own free e-mail at http://www.networksolutions.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 May 1 05:26:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UJLri09949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 05:21:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3UJLlt09945 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 05:21:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.03.02.00 201-232-124 license f747fce8063b429e7fcd66ee14ce8c58) with SMTP id <20010430192345.XMN5341.amsmta04-svc@witz>; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:23:45 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010430212219.01190e18@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: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:22:19 +0200 To: "Grattan Endicott" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk this subject really looks hot topc. Here a question from our national CLB (for club TD's) exam of 21 april of the NBB: - - d5 c765 - - h9 h2 dJ d6 c32 c98 s8 - d9 cAK South is dealer in spade contract and has already 9 tricks West (on lead) plays in trock 10 the DJ. S puts his cards on the table and laims with the words: I ruff this trick and the rest is high. TD is called what does he decide???? you will be ashtonished ro read in the answer: By the claim, the revoke becomes established. South has to give 2 tricks to EW L63A3, 64A1 what do you think of this answer?? regards, anton At 05:05 PM 30-04-01 +0100, you wrote: > >Grattan Endicott================================= >"A teacher is better than two books." > ------- >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: 30 April 2001 11:30 >Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn > > >> Roger Pewick writes >> > >> >In a contested claim the adjudicated line must be >> > legal plays. >> >> Why? Which Law says this? >> >+=+ Wrong question, really. The question is what is >the Director to do when there is an objection to a >claim, there is an irregularity embodied in the >statement of clarification, Law 70 gives him no >powers to apply penalties that would apply in play, >and any conceptual play that he substitutes must be >'normal' (an illegal play not being 'normal'). > It may be that it would have helped everyone if the >answer had been given expressly in the law, but EK >held the view that if there is doubt the legislators' >intentions must be honoured in the interpretation, a >view with which David is commonly in conflict. It is >wearisome when David returns persistently to his >mangonel, and a little sad that bored colleagues >are now saying to me that his stones no longer have >their attention. ~ 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/ > > Anton Witzen.!!! warning: new email:a.witzen@chello.nl Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 06:04:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UK4FX14454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 06:04:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3UK48t14413 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 06:04:09 +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 PAA03595 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:04:05 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010430150134.00794dc0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:01:34 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010430212219.01190e18@pop3.norton.antivirus> References: <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:22 PM 4/30/2001 +0200, Anton Witzen wrote: >you will be ashtonished ro read in the answer: No, not really. >By the claim, the revoke becomes established. South has to give 2 tricks to EW >L63A3, 64A1 >what do you think of this answer?? It is compatible with the Laws as written, and with common TD practice. It is not compatible with the intention of the Lawmakers as explained by Grattan, and is therefore illegal. >regards, >anton 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 May 1 06:09:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UK96d16217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 06:09:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f3UK8xt16178 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 06:09:00 +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 f3UKA1V20975 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005201c0d1b1$5dbf2b40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:06:35 -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 Wildavsky" > 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. Not quite right, I believe. The criterion is whether the OS gained an advantage in the table score. Sometimes the NOS keeps the table result (because of an irrational, wild, or gambling action) even though the score is adjusted for the OS. In such cases, the NOS "could have achieved a better score," but get no redress. > 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. "must be a consequence of the MI" might be a better way to put it. "Subsequent" damage is related to the MI, but is not cause for an adjustment of the NOS's score. > > 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 [not] be the score they > achieved at the table. > Not "absent the MI," which applies to the NOS only. However, I can't at the moment come up with an example showing how the OS could get an adjusted score that is based on the non-occurrence of the MI. Quite a while back, there was a BLML discussion concerning L12C2's "had the irregularity not occurred." Are those words to be "understood" (as our English teacher used to say) in the clause pertaining to the OS? If so, "absent the MI" would apply to them also. I don't remember what the consensus was, if any. 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 May 1 07:15:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3ULFEw18998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 07:15:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f3ULF7t18994 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 07:15:08 +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 f3ULF2M89360 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:15:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010430171035.00b68950@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, 30 Apr 2001 17:16:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS on Alain's case revisited In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010430172307.00832a20@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3AED422E.F2503AC3@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 11:23 AM 4/30/01, alain wrote: >Perhaps you could say : 'afteer East's opening, you were always going to >miss your spade fit. So, I adjust to 3NT =, because I must care of equity >regarding what would have happened, absent the infraction, at the moment >the infraction occurred. So, because the infraction is posterior to the >opening, the destructive effects of the opening should be taken for >granted.' >Is this right ? It must be, at least on principle (I confess to not really having looked much at the facts). If we were to deny the OS the benefit of bids made prior to their infraction, we would be perforce required to do the same with the play of the hand prior to an infraction, and I've never seen nor heard of the latter being considered when adjudicating play. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 07:51:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3ULoLN19016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 07:50:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3ULoFt19012 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 07:50:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3ULoAa25855 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:50:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010430174008.00b69280@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, 30 Apr 2001 17:51:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010430212219.01190e18@pop3.norton.antivirus> References: <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:22 PM 4/30/01, Anton wrote: >this subject really looks hot topc. >Here a question from our national CLB (for club TD's) exam of 21 april of >the NBB: > > - > - > d5 > c765 > >- - >h9 h2 >dJ d6 >c32 c98 > > s8 > - > d9 > cAK >South is dealer in spade contract and has already 9 tricks >West (on lead) plays in trock 10 the DJ. S puts his cards on the table and >laims with the words: >I ruff this trick and the rest is high. >TD is called >what does he decide???? > >you will be ashtonished ro read in the answer: >By the claim, the revoke becomes established. South has to give 2 >tricks to EW >L63A3, 64A1 >what do you think of this answer?? A fascinating situation. Of course, we have already discussed the revoke issue in some detail. But here we have something completely new to the discussion. We are presumably supposed to assume that South, having already won nine tricks, has, by claiming, made an implicit statement accepting West's lead out of turn at trick 10 (L53A), which he obviously must do in order to revoke, else L53C applies, and we adjudicate as though South had spread his hand without a statement. But is it irrational to accept a lead out of turn if one is planning to revoke to it? 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 May 1 08:21:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UMLGb19259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 08:21:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.0.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3UML9t19231 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 08:21:10 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id C6AC69830D; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:18:42 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <005201c0d1b1$5dbf2b40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005201c0d1b1$5dbf2b40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:18:07 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" 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 1:06 PM -0700 4/30/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > > 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. > >Not quite right, I believe. The criterion is whether the OS gained >an advantage in the table score. Sometimes the NOS keeps the table >result (because of an irrational, wild, or gambling action) even >though the score is adjusted for the OS. In such cases, the NOS >"could have achieved a better score," but get no redress. I was defining "damage", not listing criteria for redress. The fact that damage occurred does not mean that the laws will provide redress - there are more hurdles to clear. I hope I was appropriately careful! AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 08:58:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UMw6H02312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 08:58:06 +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-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 f3UMvwt02270 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 08:57:59 +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 14uMc6-0002Md-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:57:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:56:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> <3.0.5.32.20010430212219.01190e18@pop3.norton.antivirus> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010430212219.01190e18@pop3.norton.antivirus> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.5.32.20010430212219.01190e18@pop3.norton.antivirus>, Anton Witzen writes >this subject really looks hot topc. >Here a question from our national CLB (for club TD's) exam of 21 april of >the NBB: > > - > - > d5 > c765 > >- - >h9 h2 >dJ d6 >c32 c98 > > s8 > - > d9 > cAK >South is dealer in spade contract and has already 9 tricks >West (on lead) plays in trock 10 the DJ. S puts his cards on the table and >laims with the words: >I ruff this trick and the rest is high. >TD is called >what does he decide???? > >you will be ashtonished ro read in the answer: >By the claim, the revoke becomes established. South has to give 2 tricks to EW >L63A3, 64A1 >what do you think of this answer?? I disagree. I believe that the claim has broken down. Grattan has convinced me that one *cannot* have an illegal play as part of the claim statement. The Law in question is designed to establish a revoke at the *previous* trick, not the current one. 3 tricks to declarer, no doubt at all. cheers john >regards, >anton > >At 05:05 PM 30-04-01 +0100, you wrote: >> >>Grattan Endicott>================================= >>"A teacher is better than two books." >> ------- >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: David Stevenson >>To: >>Sent: 30 April 2001 11:30 >>Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn >> >> >>> Roger Pewick writes >>> > >>> >In a contested claim the adjudicated line must be >>> > legal plays. >>> >>> Why? Which Law says this? >>> >>+=+ Wrong question, really. The question is what is >>the Director to do when there is an objection to a >>claim, there is an irregularity embodied in the >>statement of clarification, Law 70 gives him no >>powers to apply penalties that would apply in play, >>and any conceptual play that he substitutes must be >>'normal' (an illegal play not being 'normal'). >> It may be that it would have helped everyone if the >>answer had been given expressly in the law, but EK >>held the view that if there is doubt the legislators' >>intentions must be honoured in the interpretation, a >>view with which David is commonly in conflict. It is >>wearisome when David returns persistently to his >>mangonel, and a little sad that bored colleagues >>are now saying to me that his stones no longer have >>their attention. ~ 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/ >> >> >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/ -- 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 May 1 09:11:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f3UNBnc07133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 09:11:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta03-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3UNBgt07093 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 09:11:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta03-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.03.02.00 201-232-124 license f747fce8063b429e7fcd66ee14ce8c58) with SMTP id <20010430231102.CLEI16077.amsmta03-svc@witz>; Tue, 1 May 2001 01:11:02 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010501011216.0118bcb0@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: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:12:16 +0200 To: Eric Landau , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010430174008.00b69280@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.5.32.20010430212219.01190e18@pop3.norton.antivirus> <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:51 PM 30-04-01 -0400, you wrote: >At 03:22 PM 4/30/01, Anton wrote: > >>this subject really looks hot topc. >>Here a question from our national CLB (for club TD's) exam of 21 april of >>the NBB: >> >> - >> - >> d5 >> c765 >> >>- - >>h9 h2 >>dJ d6 >>c32 c98 >> >> s8 >> - >> d9 >> cAK >>South is dealer in spade contract and has already 9 tricks >>West (on lead) plays in trock 10 the DJ. S puts his cards on the table and >>laims with the words: >>I ruff this trick and the rest is high. >>TD is called >>what does he decide???? >> >>you will be ashtonished ro read in the answer: >>By the claim, the revoke becomes established. South has to give 2 >>tricks to EW >>L63A3, 64A1 >>what do you think of this answer?? > sorry, 9 tricks are played :) my mistake in the translation west is on lead as is stated regards, anton >A fascinating situation. Of course, we have already discussed the >revoke issue in some detail. But here we have something completely new >to the discussion. We are presumably supposed to assume that South, >having already won nine tricks, has, by claiming, made an implicit >statement accepting West's lead out of turn at trick 10 (L53A), which >he obviously must do in order to revoke, else L53C applies, and we >adjudicate as though South had spread his hand without a >statement. But is it irrational to accept a lead out of turn if one is >planning to revoke to it? 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/ > > Anton Witzen.!!! warning: new email:a.witzen@chello.nl Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 10:57:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f410v2O13197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 10:57:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f410urt13149 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 10:56:54 +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 14uOTA-0000Wr-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 May 2001 00:56:50 +0000 Message-ID: <+GZRhkC09d76Ew$F@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:56:04 +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> <005201c0d1b1$5dbf2b40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005201c0d1b1$5dbf2b40$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 >Not "absent the MI," which applies to the NOS only. However, I can't >at the moment come up with an example showing how the OS could get >an adjusted score that is based on the non-occurrence of the MI. >Quite a while back, there was a BLML discussion concerning L12C2's >"had the irregularity not occurred." Are those words to be >"understood" (as our English teacher used to say) in the clause >pertaining to the OS? Not in my view. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 10:57:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f410v5H13215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 10:57:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f410urt13150 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 10:56:56 +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 14uOTA-0000Wu-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 May 2001 00:56:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:57:28 +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> <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott================================= >"A teacher is better than two books." > ------- >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: 30 April 2001 11:30 >Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn > > >> Roger Pewick writes >> > >> >In a contested claim the adjudicated line must be >> > legal plays. >> >> Why? Which Law says this? >> >+=+ Wrong question, really. The question is what is >the Director to do when there is an objection to a >claim, there is an irregularity embodied in the >statement of clarification, Law 70 gives him no >powers to apply penalties that would apply in play, >and any conceptual play that he substitutes must be >'normal' (an illegal play not being 'normal'). > It may be that it would have helped everyone if the >answer had been given expressly in the law, but EK >held the view that if there is doubt the legislators' >intentions must be honoured in the interpretation, a >view with which David is commonly in conflict. It is >wearisome when David returns persistently to his >mangonel, and a little sad that bored colleagues >are now saying to me that his stones no longer have >their attention. I am very sorry if I am boring people. Perhaps it is time I moved on. Strangely enough I have not seen any answer to this problem here so I did not realise it had been answered. I do try to point things out for other people to consider. I did not realise how boring this was for people. Stupidly I thought one of the points of BLML was to consider such 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 Tue May 1 11:10:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4119wF14038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 11:09:58 +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 f4119pt14034 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 11:09:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-92-164.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.92.164]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4119dH24362; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:09:40 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <004101c0d1db$5d0007e0$a45c063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anton Witzen" , , "Grattan Endicott" References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> <3.0.5.32.20010430212219.01190e18@pop3.norton.antivirus> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 02:02:15 +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 To: Grattan Endicott ; Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 8:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn > this subject really looks hot topc. > Here a question from our national CLB (for club TD's) > exam of 21 april of the NBB: > > - > - > d5 > c765 > > - - > h9 h2 > dJ d6 > c32 c98 > > s8 > - > d9 > cAK > South is dealer in spade contract and has already > 9 tricks West (on lead) plays in trick 10 the DJ. S > puts his cards on the table and claims with the > words: I ruff this trick and the rest is high. > TD is called > what does he decide???? > > you will be ashtonished ro read in the answer: > By the claim, the revoke becomes established. > South has to give 2 tricks to EW L63A3, 64A1 > > what do you think of this answer?? > regards, > anton > +=+ Hi Anton, In this thread I have ceased to be astonished at anything I have read. It seems the law has become unravelled and that the question is one to submit to the WBFLC for review and a fresh pronouncement. As to the particular circumstances above, a claim is described that is made by a declarer who faces his hand at a point when he has made no play to the current trick (trick 10); at that point no revoke has occurred that can be established by the act of making the claim. All play has ceased with the lead of JD on the table. One of the difficulties in this discussion is to obtain recognition that the Director's task is to judge the merits of the situation frozen at the point of claim (the statement of clarification being, by the reading of the laws, subsequent to the act of claiming and not part of the play). ~ 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 May 1 11:33:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f411X0p14056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 11:33:00 +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 f411Wrt14052 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 11:32:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14uP22-0004Aj-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:32:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 02:31:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: [BLML] MI ruling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mise en scene: YC Ch Teams of 4. Round of 16, Mostly experts You hold Kxxx Kxx xxx JTx as East, vul not material South - competent, _not_ expert North - his GB international pro. S W N E P P 1H P 3Sa P 3Na P 3S - an unspecified splinter 4Da P 5Da P 3N - where is it 5H AP 4D - here it is. 5D - cue Does it make any difference to your lead if you are told by North: 1) the splinter guarantees a void 2) the splinter may be a void 3) the splinter is not a void If you are told it is a singleton and South says it shows a void does this make any difference to your lead? If you are told it is a singleton, there is no correction and you see a void in dummy, where South believes it is a void would you adjust. btw what would you lead? Sx Hx CJ? -- 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 May 1 11:53:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f411pVI14073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 11:51:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f411pKt14069 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 11:51:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt956.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.164.166]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA30852; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:50:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <009a01c0d1e1$554054a0$a6a4aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:51:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS writes > Grattan Endicott writes > > > >Grattan Endicott >================================= > >"A teacher is better than two books." > > ------- > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: David Stevenson > >To: > >Sent: 30 April 2001 11:30 > >Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn > > > > > >> Roger Pewick writes > >> > > >> >In a contested claim the adjudicated line must be > >> > legal plays. > >> > >> Why? Which Law says this? > >> > >+=+ Wrong question, really. The question is what is > >the Director to do when there is an objection to a > >claim, there is an irregularity embodied in the > >statement of clarification, Law 70 gives him no > >powers to apply penalties that would apply in play, > >and any conceptual play that he substitutes must be > >'normal' (an illegal play not being 'normal'). > > It may be that it would have helped everyone if the > >answer had been given expressly in the law, but EK > >held the view that if there is doubt the legislators' > >intentions must be honoured in the interpretation, a > >view with which David is commonly in conflict. It is > >wearisome when David returns persistently to his > >mangonel, and a little sad that bored colleagues > >are now saying to me that his stones no longer have > >their attention. > > I am very sorry if I am boring people. Perhaps it is time I moved on. > Strangely enough I have not seen any answer to this problem here so I > did not realise it had been answered. > > I do try to point things out for other people to consider. I did not > realise how boring this was for people. Stupidly I thought one of the > points of BLML was to consider such points. > It appears Grattan is having a bad day. I can't imagine why he would write something like that in a public forum, and I have no idea what he is talking about. Dare I say it?---It would be better if the laws were clearer on this point. Your original question is interesting to me, and in general your posts here and in RGB are the ones I usually go to first. Your posts have been the most interesting and helpful to me, and they are often given with a great sense of humor---the funniest to me was your answer saying "Simple, really---A+/A-". Perhaps we need two BLMLs: One where there are questions and discussions, and another where there are none of these things---only pronouncements handed down from one or two authorities. Since my understanding of bridge laws in not complete, I would spend more of my time on the former. 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 May 1 18:01:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4181JH04451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:01:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.142]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4181Et04447 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:01:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from brian ([24.180.160.52]) by femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010501080105.ODWO20722.femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com@brian> for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 01:01:05 -0700 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn) Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 04:01:07 -0400 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:57:28 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Grattan Endicott writes >> >>Grattan Endicott>================================= >>"A teacher is better than two books." >> ------- >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: David Stevenson >>To: >>Sent: 30 April 2001 11:30 >>Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn >> >> >>> Roger Pewick writes >>> > >>> >In a contested claim the adjudicated line must be >>> > legal plays. >>> >>> Why? Which Law says this? >>> >>+=+ Wrong question, really. The question is what is >>the Director to do when there is an objection to a >>claim, there is an irregularity embodied in the >>statement of clarification, Law 70 gives him no >>powers to apply penalties that would apply in play, >>and any conceptual play that he substitutes must be >>'normal' (an illegal play not being 'normal'). >> It may be that it would have helped everyone if the >>answer had been given expressly in the law, but EK >>held the view that if there is doubt the legislators' >>intentions must be honoured in the interpretation, a >>view with which David is commonly in conflict. It is >>wearisome when David returns persistently to his >>mangonel, and a little sad that bored colleagues >>are now saying to me that his stones no longer have >>their attention. > > I am very sorry if I am boring people. Perhaps it is time I moved on. >Strangely enough I have not seen any answer to this problem here so I >did not realise it had been answered. > > I do try to point things out for other people to consider. I did not >realise how boring this was for people. Stupidly I thought one of the >points of BLML was to consider such points. > There seems to be a rather fundamental point here, and just for once, it's got nothing to do with the TFLB. I post only rarely to this list, but I read most of the posts, and it seems to me that there is a perception amongst those with responsibilities at WBF level that, once they have agreed on a response and said so, that all further discussion of the point is superfluous. Now I acknowledge the status of Grattan, Ton and Kojak, but Grattan (I think it was you who said it, certainly one of the three of you did), while your depth of knowledge of the Laws of the game is obvious to all, if you expect that a statement on a specific question, even one from your lofty position within the game's administration, is somehow going to abruptly curtail discussion, well I'm sorry, but in that case I can only say that you have a hell of a lot to learn about (unmoderated) mailing lists. If you and your "bored colleagues" feel that DWS's posts are no longer worth your attention, then Kojak has already given you the answer, don't bother to read them. If you feel that this is not an option, that what DWS says is so wrong that it simply must be corrected in case readers of BLML are misled, then I'm afraid you have discovered one of the costs of reading mailing lists, not to mention Usenet in general. There isn't really a solution to all this, other than possibly to split the mailing list, producing one moderated one where Ton, Kojak and yourself can dispense clarifications and/or opinions in response to questions without people disagreeing with what you say (or discussing it, or nit-picking it, call it what you will), and a second free-for-all list where those who want to continue the discussion, even after you've made your opinions known, can do exactly that. Maybe Markus wants to host a moderated mailing list called something like BLML.Questions.to.the.WBFLC, or I'll even offer to host (and moderate) it myself *IF* there's enough demand for it, but other than that, you simply have to accept that the tradition on mailing lists is that people will say what they wish, and in the vast majority of cases, posts like the final paragraph of the one of yours that I've quoted above are quite simply counter productive. Please let me point out, if it's not already obvious enough, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that I'm daft enough to get myself involved in some kind of laws dispute between DWS and yourself. I'm just trying to tell you what I've long since learned to be the realities of mailing lists, even one with as restricted a membership as BLML. If anyone else has got this far, then the offer above is genuine, folks. My wife and I are moving house in a week's time, but if there is enough of a demand for a "questions" mailing list, I am willing to host it as a public service once I have everything set up again (no later than the end of May), and to restrict answers to the question to those coming from Grattan, Kojak, Ton and anyone else whom those three named would like to designate. Personally, I expect the demand to be underwhelming, but I'll carry it through if I'm proved wrong. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 18:06:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4186B504466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:06:12 +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 f41864t04459 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:06:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-6.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.6]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4185wq04272 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 10:05:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AEE61CC.626A3733@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 09:12:12 +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 out of turn References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wholeheartedly concur with David on this one. Grattan, you are shying away from your responsabilities. David Stevenson wrote: > > Grattan Endicott writes > > > >Grattan Endicott >================================= > >"A teacher is better than two books." We have only one FLB, and it does not give us satisfactory answers. Please be the teacher, Grattan. > >> > >+=+ Wrong question, really. The question is what is > >the Director to do when there is an objection to a > >claim, there is an irregularity embodied in the > >statement of clarification, Law 70 gives him no > >powers to apply penalties that would apply in play, Please explain how L70 does this. "as equitable as possible" might well include, to one player, penalties incurred for infractions that are going to happen. > >and any conceptual play that he substitutes must be > >'normal' (an illegal play not being 'normal'). If the TD determines that it is "normal" for a player, in a situation, to revoke, then why should that not be included ? Remember my example of the claimer with only 12 cards. > > It may be that it would have helped everyone if the > >answer had been given expressly in the law, but EK > >held the view that if there is doubt the legislators' > >intentions must be honoured in the interpretation, a > >view with which David is commonly in conflict. It is > >wearisome when David returns persistently to his Well, he has not gotten an answer. > >mangonel, and a little sad that bored colleagues > >are now saying to me that his stones no longer have > >their attention. > I let David answer that one : > I am very sorry if I am boring people. Perhaps it is time I moved on. Please don't. > Strangely enough I have not seen any answer to this problem here so I > did not realise it had been answered. > Nor have I. I posted a claim for 6NT+1 from a claimer who has only 12 cards. Grattan, Ton, your ruling please ? > I do try to point things out for other people to consider. I did not > realise how boring this was for people. Stupidly I thought one of the > points of BLML was to consider such points. > Certainly it is, David, and it does not become people of Grattan's stature to think a matter is settled when, at least to DWS' point of view, it isn't. And I might add that to my point of view, this matter is settled. When I agree with DWS about something, that should settle it :-) But of course when GE disagrees, that should be the trigger for a continuing debate, not a discarding out of hand with words of EK to back something 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 Tue May 1 18:06:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4186GS04469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:06:16 +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 f41867t04462 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:06:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-6.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.6]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f41862q04295 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 10:06:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AEE63B0.6CD5C07B@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 09:20:16 +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] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3AEBC876.BADD7C97@village.uunet.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: > > >> 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". > > Somehow I never tire of hearing that I'm right. Perhaps that's > because I don't hear it often! > We should say it more often then. You are right, Adam, and perhaps a few times more than I care to acknowledge ;-) > As to the one point, my theory of the law here is just that, a > theory. While I believe it to be correct, no theory overrides the > facts. West has already provided MI - we cannot ignore it. > Indeed, but when we return to a "correct situation" in order to adjudicate what "would have happened", we must return to a fully level field. When opponents are "intimately aware" of the methods used, they do not have the AI that they now have. It is a well established practice that you are entitled to the correct system, but not to the system AND the mistake. There are numerous AC rulings to back that practice up. It is more than a theory. > If you're not convinced on the legal merits consider the public > policy implications. My interpretation would provide an incentive for > pairs to know the methods they are playing and explain them > correctly. Surely that's not a bad thing! > That can cut both ways. Your method would be extremely harsh on simple bridge mistakes, thereby stifling experimentation. That's a bad think, IMO. > AW -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 18:46:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f418k1W04512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:46:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f418jst04508 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:45:55 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA10823; Tue, 1 May 2001 10:45:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue May 01 10:45:25 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 <01K31P1NQO4S006417@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 01 May 2001 10:45:03 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 01 May 2001 10:44:17 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 10:44:57 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) To: "'brian@meadows.pair.com'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B831@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It is not my choice to be involved as an object in a split up of BLML. My experience with e-mail debating groups does not go further than BLML but I consider that sufficient. There certainly is no reason to have discussions stopped as soon as 'one of us' has given his opinion. We make our mistakes once in a while and it even happens that we do not agree amongst ourselves. But if all three of us have the same opinion in a case, it would be a good idea to be somewhat reluctant with still having objections. I mean objections against our view, not against the meaning of the law involved if there is some other desire. I would prefer more suggestions on how to improve the laws in stead of persisting in telling what the law means because you (reader) want it to be so. The discussion about Law 34 was a shocking experience for me and I needed some weeks to recover. News: The EBL has the plan to organize an EBL-TD course from 31 August (arriving and using the evening) to 5 September (leaving). It is not 100% decided yet but keep it in mind if you are interested. Somewhere in Italy. A letter to your NBO will go out soon (if decided). 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 May 1 18:55:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f418s3c04524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:54:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f418rvt04520 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:53:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-66-150.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.66.150]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f418rjH01587; Tue, 1 May 2001 09:53:45 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <004201c0d21c$32a70de0$96427bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jerry Fusselman" Cc: References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> <009a01c0d1e1$554054a0$a6a4aec7@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 09:52:12 +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 To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 2:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn > > > > It appears Grattan is having a bad day. I can't > imagine why he would write something like that > in a public forum, and I have no idea what he is > talking about. > +=+ I have a mounting concern that David's contribution may be impaired if he goes too far in alienating people who will be central to any progress in making the laws more easily understood. They get his message the first time they read it and become disturbed if they perceive a danger that repetition may lead people to believe the law is already what he would like it to be. I am merely being sensitive to comment I receive and perhaps overcaring of David. +=+ > > Dare I say it?---It would be better if the laws > were clearer on this point. > +=+ On several points, and particularly in the overall format and approach. However, for now the WBFLC has taken its stand in backing the general Kaplan principle that actions not expressly forbidden in the laws are not thereby authorized. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 19:46:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f419kaD09624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 19:46:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f419kTt09591 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 19:46:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f419kHp06270 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 May 2001 10:46:17 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 10:46 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn 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: <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> Grattan wrote: > > >In a contested claim the adjudicated line must be > > > legal plays. > > > > Why? Which Law says this? > > > +=+ Wrong question, really. The question is what is > the Director to do when there is an objection to a > claim, there is an irregularity embodied in the > statement of clarification, Law 70 gives him no > powers to apply penalties that would apply in play, > and any conceptual play that he substitutes must be > 'normal' (an illegal play not being 'normal'). Just for clarification. I know a LOOT is an irregularity (and thus may be excluded from any claim if there is an objection) but isn't a LOOT *condoned* a legal play? The act of condoning makes it legal, just as condoning an insufficient bid creates a legal (if unusual) auction. I think this makes sense because there is never an adjustment for a LOOT condoned even if the LOOTer benefits. This differs from the treatment of eg a 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 Tue May 1 21:01:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41B1HX06252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 21:01:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f41B1Bt06211 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 21:01:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-58.cswnet.com [209.136.193.58]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A97FD5D00A for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 06:01:14 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <002101c0d22e$dc5bb4a0$3ac188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: Subject: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 06:07:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01C0D204.F2B4A100" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C0D204.F2B4A100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable South is dealer. East bids 1D. South doesn't notice and bids 1H. Director is called. If I understand the Law, South has accepted the 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the auction continues normally. Now what if East opens 2D, South again bids 1H without noticing. Is the correct ruling that the 2D bid is accepted but that the insufficient 1H bid also stands, or is South required to make the 1H bid sufficient? Or is the bid out of turn canceled? Nelson Ford ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C0D204.F2B4A100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
South is dealer.
East bids 1D.
South doesn't notice and bids 1H.
Director is called.
If I understand the Law, South has accepted the
1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the
auction continues normally.
 
Now what if East opens 2D,
South again bids 1H without noticing.
Is the correct ruling that the 2D bid is accepted
but that the insufficient 1H bid also stands,
or is South required to make the 1H bid sufficient?
Or is the bid out of turn canceled?
 
Nelson Ford
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C0D204.F2B4A100-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 21:47:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41BlH022532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 21:47:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f41Bl9t22491 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 21:47:10 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA16386; Tue, 1 May 2001 13:47:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue May 01 13:46:40 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 <01K31VDQF5IK0064BE@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 01 May 2001 13:46:35 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 01 May 2001 13:45:49 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 13:46:29 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Bid out of turn To: "'Nelson/Kay Ford'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B835@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 South is dealer. East bids 1D. South doesn't notice and bids 1H. Director is called. If I understand the Law, South has accepted the 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the auction continues normally. Now what if East opens 2D, South again bids 1H without noticing. Is the correct ruling that the 2D bid is accepted but that the insufficient 1H bid also stands, or is South required to make the 1H bid sufficient? Or is the bid out of turn canceled? Nelson Ford Very good questions, especially in the combination of them. Let me tell you about the in the European BL generally accepted and by instruction taught approach. We need law 28B and law 29, which seem to read contradictory to each other, sorry, sorry, sorry. 28B says that in these cases the 1H bid is the opening call (since it was south's turn to call) and east's call is cancelled. 29 says that after a COOT LHO may accept the C and does so by calling himself (may be it doesn't say so: what is the meaning of 'elect' here? It suggests the awareness of a choice, but if south doesn't notice the COOT there is no awareness. Has David Burn an opinion here?) We solve this contradiction by asking south what his intention was: opening or following and apply 28 or 29 as the case will be. In case of an insufficient overcall when accepting the C it seems a good idea to explain the consequences of accepting. I don't have any problem with telling this before asking for south's choice, though that might influence his 'intention'. I am waiting for those of you who do not agree with that last approach, their view can't be ignored. 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 May 1 22:01:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41C1VD27505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 22:01:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f41C1Ot27465 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 22:01:25 +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 f41C1JI16020 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 08:01:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010501075921.00b4fc60@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, 01 May 2001 08:03:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:16 PM 4/30/01, Todd wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >>At 03:22 PM 4/30/01, Anton wrote: >>>this subject really looks hot topc. >>>Here a question from our national CLB (for club TD's) exam of 21 >>>april of >>>the NBB: >>> >>> - >>> - >>> d5 >>> c765 >>> >>>- - >>>h9 h2 >>>dJ d6 >>>c32 c98 >>> >>> s8 >>> - >>> d9 >>> cAK >>>South is dealer in spade contract and has already 9 tricks >>>West (on lead) plays in trock 10 the DJ. S puts his cards on the >>>table and >>>laims with the words: >>>I ruff this trick and the rest is high. >>>TD is called >>>what does he decide???? >>> >>>you will be ashtonished ro read in the answer: >>>By the claim, the revoke becomes established. South has to give 2 >>>tricks to EW >>>L63A3, 64A1 >>>what do you think of this answer?? >> >>A fascinating situation. Of course, we have already discussed the >>revoke issue in some detail. But here we have something completely new >>to the discussion. We are presumably supposed to assume that South, >>having already won nine tricks, has, by claiming, made an implicit >>statement accepting West's lead out of turn at trick 10 (L53A), > >West was on lead. But South has already won nine tricks. As I read the laws, that must put South on lead to trick 10. 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 May 1 22:02:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41C28O27713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 22:02:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta02-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f41C21t27666 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 22:02:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta02-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.03.02.00 201-232-124 license f747fce8063b429e7fcd66ee14ce8c58) with SMTP id <20010501115600.IDFN19557.amsmta02-svc@witz> for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 13:56:00 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010501140237.0118d8f0@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: Tue, 01 May 2001 14:02:37 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn In-Reply-To: <002101c0d22e$dc5bb4a0$3ac188d1@kay> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:07 AM 01-05-01 -0500, you wrote: >>>> South is dealer. East bids 1D. South doesn't notice and bids 1H. Director is called. If I understand the Law, South has accepted the 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the auction continues normally. <<<<<<<< no no, south is dealer and bids 1H. the 1D bid is canceled and his partner isnt allowed to take advantage of this bid (16c2) bidding goes on af if nothing has happened regards, anton >>>> Now what if East opens 2D, South again bids 1H without noticing. Is the correct ruling that the 2D bid is accepted but that the insufficient 1H bid also stands, or is South required to make the 1H bid sufficient? Or is the bid out of turn canceled? <<<<<<<< ues, see above >>>> Nelson Ford <<<<<<<< Anton Witzen.!!! warning: new email:a.witzen@chello.nl Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 22:13:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41CBg401126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 22:11:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f41CBZt01096 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 22:11:36 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 1 May 2001 13:53:26 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 13:53:09 +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 Nelson/Kay Ford [mailto:nford@mail.cswnet.com] wrote: >South is dealer. >East bids 1D. >South doesn't notice and bids 1H. >Director is called. >If I understand the Law, South has accepted the >1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the >auction continues normally. > >Now what if East opens 2D, >South again bids 1H without noticing. >Is the correct ruling that the 2D bid is accepted >but that the insufficient 1H bid also stands, >or is South required to make the 1H bid sufficient? >Or is the bid out of turn canceled? L28B: It was South's turn to call, therefore in both cases East bid is cancelled without penalty and the auction continues as if East had not called, but the information of East's bid is UI to West. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 1 22:21:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41CKoH04310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 22:20:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f41CKht04269 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 22:20:44 +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 f41CKdI17155 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 08:20:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010501081036.00ab9f00@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, 01 May 2001 08:22:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] MI ruling In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:31 PM 4/30/01, John wrote: >Mise en scene: YC Ch Teams of 4. Round of 16, Mostly experts > >You hold Kxxx Kxx xxx JTx as East, vul not material > >South - competent, _not_ expert >North - his GB international pro. > >S W N E >P P 1H P >3Sa P 3Na P 3S - an unspecified splinter >4Da P 5Da P 3N - where is it >5H AP 4D - here it is. 5D - cue > >Does it make any difference to your lead if you are told >by North: > >1) the splinter guarantees a void >2) the splinter may be a void >3) the splinter is not a void > >If you are told it is a singleton and South says it shows a void >does this make any difference to your lead? > >If you are told it is a singleton, there is no correction and you see a >void in dummy, where South believes it is a void would you adjust. > >btw what would you lead? > >Sx >Hx >CJ? Probably CJ; I'm not sure, but I certainly wouldn't lead a diamond regardless of whether South has shown a void, a singleton or either. If East led a non-diamond, I don't see how the nature of the splinter could have affected his lead. If he led a diamond, but claims he would have led something else had he known that South guaranteed a void in diamonds, and, of course, the N-S agreements are that it did, I would listen to his case, but I don't think I'd be all that easy to convince. Note that if I were to rule against East here (as I probably would) it would be on the grounds that it is not at all likely that South would have lead differently with correct information, and therefore there was no damage, NOT on the grounds that, although he was damaged, the lead was an egregious error that broke the connection between the infraction and the damage leading to loss of redress. 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 May 1 23:11:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41DB5G05785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 23:11:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f41DAxt05777 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 23:11:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.142.243] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14uZvb-0004o3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 01 May 2001 14:10:55 +0100 Message-ID: <004301c0d240$0c11b1c0$f38e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010501075921.00b4fc60@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 14:10:06 +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 Eric wrote: > >>> - > >>> - > >>> d5 > >>> c765 > >>> > >>>- - > >>>h9 h2 > >>>dJ d6 > >>>c32 c98 > >>> > >>> s8 > >>> - > >>> d9 > >>> cAK > >>A fascinating situation. Of course, we have already discussed the > >>revoke issue in some detail. But here we have something completely new > >>to the discussion. We are presumably supposed to assume that South, > >>having already won nine tricks, has, by claiming, made an implicit > >>statement accepting West's lead out of turn at trick 10 (L53A), > > > >West was on lead. > > But South has already won nine tricks. As I read the laws, that must > put South on lead to trick 10. Or, perhaps, North. Maybe there should be an exam for people who set questions for TD exams, so that they do not set questions which include impossibilities. We are already in enough trouble with the issue of whether claims can embrace illegal plays - the issue of whether they cam embrace impossible ones can safely be left for another millennium. 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 May 1 23:11:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41DBaq05791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 23:11:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f41DBTt05787 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 23:11:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f41D9AA16195 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 09:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 09:07:03 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:01 AM -0400 5/1/01, Brian Meadows wrote: >I'm just trying to tell you what I've long since learned to be >the realities of mailing lists, even one with as restricted a >membership as BLML. I dunno about "restricted membership". Y'all let *me* in! :-) I agree with most everything Brian says here (although I did stumble over his reference to Usenet. :-) 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/AwUBOu61/b2UW3au93vOEQImcQCg+5pMpV5UckPAA06nxgM/chE7pooAniRp qyg3hZLxyNIKqg289K8Y5RkX =0GA4 -----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 May 1 23:43:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41Dha806506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 23:43:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f41DhTt06461 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 23:43:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.142.243] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14uaR3-000141-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 01 May 2001 14:43:25 +0100 Message-ID: <006601c0d244$964e5920$f38e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B835@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 14:42:36 +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 Ton wrote: [NF] > South is dealer. > East bids 1D. > South doesn't notice and bids 1H. > Director is called. > If I understand the Law, South has accepted the > 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the > auction continues normally. No he hasn't, and no it doesn't. If South really did not notice, then L28B applies; the 1D bid is cancelled and Law 16 may be wheeled into position should West act on information therefrom. Only if South gave reason to believe that he was exercising the option given to him by L29 to accept East's 1D opening as a legitimate contribution to the auction does the 1D call stand and the auction continue. [NF] > Now what if East opens 2D, > South again bids 1H without noticing. > Is the correct ruling that the 2D bid is accepted > but that the insufficient 1H bid also stands, > or is South required to make the 1H bid sufficient? > Or is the bid out of turn canceled? [TK] > Very good questions, especially in the combination of them. > > Let me tell you about the in the European BL generally accepted and by > instruction taught approach. > > We need law 28B and law 29, which seem to read contradictory to each other, > sorry, sorry, sorry. > > 28B says that in these cases the 1H bid is the opening call (since it was > south's turn to call) and east's call is cancelled. > > 29 says that after a COOT LHO may accept the C and does so by calling > himself (may be it doesn't say so: what is the meaning of 'elect' here? It > suggests the awareness of a choice, but if south doesn't notice the COOT > there is no awareness. Has David Burn an opinion here?) Yes - I think that Carthage ought to be destroyed. In the cases above, it is not clear to me that South has "elected to call" in the sense of L29 - he has just called, without being aware that a call out of rotation has been made. The language is capable of more than one interpretation (sigh), but it would be something of a stretch to apply it to cases in which a player is not exercising an option, merely acting at what he believes to be his own turn. The parenthesis in 29B is pretty silly, by the way. Thus, I think that in cases where a player has obviously not noticed a call out of rotation, there is no question of his having "accepted" or "condoned" it in the sense of L29. (Why do people use this word "condoned" so frequently? Was it in the Laws themselves at one time?) > We solve this contradiction by asking south what his intention was: opening > or following and apply 28 or 29 as the case will be. In case of an > insufficient overcall when accepting the C it seems a good idea to explain > the consequences of accepting. > I don't have any problem with telling this before asking for south's choice, > though that might influence his 'intention'. I am waiting for those of you > who do not agree with that last approach, their view can't be ignored. I do not agree with the approach of asking a player what he thought he was doing, but (in effect) saying to him: "If you tell me that you thought you were doing X, your side will be penalised for making an insufficient bid, whereas if you tell me that you thought you were doing Y, their side will have unauthorised information and will have to be careful during the auction and play." If you want to find out what a player thought he was doing, you should just ask him! While in the first case South might say: "I knew I could bid 1H over 1D, so that's what I did", you might then apply L29. Of course, you would also fine South 80% of his life savings for not calling the director following an irregularity. Moreover, suppose that you look at South's hand (yes all right DWS, I know) and you see that he has a seven count with HAJ10xx. Now, do you believe that he really was opening 1H at his turn with this hand? Or do you believe that in fact, he was making an overcall in full awareness of the 1D opening, but (in view of what you have told him about his options) he has decided to pretend otherwise? In the second case, is not really conceivable that, if you ask a player what he was doing, he will tell you: "I was condoning East's 2D opening by bidding 1H over it". Law 28B seems to me the one to adopt in both of Nelson Ford's cases: the diamond bids disappear; West is in possession of UI; and the auction continues from South's 1H opening. 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 May 2 01:11:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41FAco19598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 01:10:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f41FAUt19564 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 01:10:32 +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 14ubnG-0004QT-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 May 2001 15:10:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 16:09:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn References: <002101c0d22e$dc5bb4a0$3ac188d1@kay> In-Reply-To: <002101c0d22e$dc5bb4a0$3ac188d1@kay> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002101c0d22e$dc5bb4a0$3ac188d1@kay>, Nelson/Kay Ford writes > South is dealer. > East bids 1D. > South doesn't notice and bids 1H. > Director is called. > If I understand the Law, South has accepted the > 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the > auction continues normally. >   > Now what if East opens 2D, > South again bids 1H without noticing. This is quite interesting, and I've ruled it twice at the table. My take on this is that West can accept, failing which South must make a legal call. L27B " ... must be corrected ...". In other words the IB has condoned the COOT, but itself is an infraction. I think it would be difficult to construct any other interpretation of this one. > Is the correct ruling that the 2D bid is accepted > but that the insufficient 1H bid also stands, > or is South required to make the 1H bid sufficient? > Or is the bid out of turn canceled? >   > Nelson Ford -- 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 May 2 01:20:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41FJx121459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 01:19:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f41FJrt21455 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 01:19:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14ubwL-0001sw-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 May 2001 16:19:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 16:18:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn References: <002101c0d22e$dc5bb4a0$3ac188d1@kay> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <002101c0d22e$dc5bb4a0$3ac188d1@kay>, Nelson/Kay Ford > writes >> South is dealer. >> East bids 1D. >> South doesn't notice and bids 1H. >> Director is called. >> If I understand the Law, South has accepted the >> 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the >> auction continues normally. >>   >> Now what if East opens 2D, >> South again bids 1H without noticing. > >This is quite interesting, and I've ruled it twice at the table. My >take on this is that West can accept, failing which South must make a >legal call. L27B " ... must be corrected ...". In other words the IB >has condoned the COOT, but itself is an infraction. I think it would be >difficult to construct any other interpretation of this one. I misread the dealer in my first reply to this thread and withdraw my answer, but would suggest that the problem I addressed is also interesting. 2D (OOT in 2nd seat) 1H overcall should be ruled per 27B > >> Is the correct ruling that the 2D bid is accepted >> but that the insufficient 1H bid also stands, >> or is South required to make the 1H bid sufficient? >> Or is the bid out of turn canceled? >>   >> Nelson Ford > -- 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 May 2 02:12:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41GCF321499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 02:12:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe47.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f41GC9t21495 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 02:12:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 May 2001 09:12:02 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.165.192] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B835@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 11:07:28 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 May 2001 16:12:02.0441 (UTC) FILETIME=[7511FF90:01C0D259] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Nelson/Kay Ford' ; Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 6:46 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Bid out of turn | South is dealer. | East bids 1D. | South doesn't notice and bids 1H. | Director is called. | If I understand the Law, South has accepted the | 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the | auction continues normally. | | Now what if East opens 2D, | South again bids 1H without noticing. | Is the correct ruling that the 2D bid is accepted | but that the insufficient 1H bid also stands, | or is South required to make the 1H bid sufficient? | Or is the bid out of turn canceled? | | Nelson Ford | | Very good questions, especially in the combination of them. | | Let me tell you about the in the European BL generally accepted and | by instruction taught approach. | | We need law 28B and law 29, which seem to read contradictory to each | other, sorry, sorry, sorry. | | 28B says that in these cases the 1H bid is the opening call (since | it was south's turn to call) and east's call is cancelled. | | 29 says that after a COOT LHO may accept the C and does so by calling | himself (may be it doesn't say so: what is the meaning of 'elect' here? It | suggests the awareness of a choice, but if south doesn't notice the COOT | there is no awareness. Has David Burn an opinion here?) | | We solve this contradiction by asking south what his intention was: opening | or following and apply 28 or 29 as the case will be. In case of an | insufficient overcall when accepting the C it seems a good idea to | explain the consequences of accepting. | I don't have any problem with telling this before asking for south's choice, | though that might influence his 'intention'. I am waiting for those of you | who do not agree with that last approach, their view can't be ignored. | | ton Yes, it looks to be a way to make L28 and L29 coherent. But I point to the following: Both laws are written in the absolute without condition on what is in the mind- 28B if the skipped player calls the COOT is canceled as if it did not happen; 29A- after a COOT if LHO calls it stands. A player who points to L28B should expect that it requires the COOT be cancelled. A player who points to L29A should expect that it requires the COOT stand. That this is a distressing situation is not the fault of the player, the player is merely following the law. As for the EBL approach which rests on mind reading, it seems right that only the intention of the player at the time of his call ought to be considered. Presumably this player had the opportunity penalize the COOT, did he not? Providing for the opportunity to change his intention makes for three bites of the apple and that does not seem right at all. But I do not look favorably upon mind reading for resolving the situation [the call by the player, as opposed to the problem with the law]. It is my thinking that players have a duty to pay attention to the game. Therefore it is their responsibility to condone or penalize a COOT. If an exception is made it should be the case where he did not have time to react to the COOT- such as when he himself was in the act of making his call. It must be right to provide the player a small chance to avoid being penalized for the act of condoning an infraction he probably was not aware of. It is therefore reasonable to provide a L28B like avenue for players. My view is to require by fiat that there is a short time of perhaps one second where such a state of affairs exist after a COOT when a call by the proper player cancels the COOT without penalty. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 2 04:01:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41I0WN01458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 04:00:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thor.inter.net.il (thor.inter.net.il [192.114.186.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f41I0Pt01454 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 04:00:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-10-207.inter.net.il [213.8.10.207]) by thor.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AOI58248; Tue, 1 May 2001 20:58:30 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3AEEF998.DC426BEC@inter.net.il> Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 20:59:52 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: [BLML] D-BLML list - the clever friends - April 2001 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML member Here is the 30th release of the almost new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). ______________________ This is the fifrth time we decided to add our lovely Human's nicknames ! Please SEND ME YOUR NICKNAMES if have any.... """""""""""""""""""""" The list will include lovely dogs who go on their existence at Rainbow Bridge , thinking about their lovely human friends. D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST Nickname (cats) Linda Trent - Panda(RB 2/2000), Gus, Gizmo (none) Dany Haimovich -Ghinghis - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Molly (3) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe {RB-5/1999} (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan Peter Pals - Turbo (none) Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) Roger Pewick - Louie (none) Phillip Mendelshon - Visa , Mr. Peabody (none) Eric Favager - Sophie, Sundance-Sunny (6) Larry Bennett - Rosie , Rattie (none) Olivier Beauvillain - Alphonse Dodaie (1) Helen Thompson - Rex,Sheeba, Cobber (3) Alain Gottcheiner -Columbo - Gottchie (none) Art Brodsky - Norton (1) John H. Blu - Whitney, Nestle (none) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 11 years old black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 2 04:33:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41IW7n11598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 04:32:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f41IW0t11561 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 04:32:01 +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 f41IX1V04036 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 11:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b201c0d26c$fdd883e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20010423145106.00832600@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005201c0d1b1$5dbf2b40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 11:31:46 -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 Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > > > > 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. > > > >Not quite right, I believe. The criterion is whether the OS gained > >an advantage in the table score. Sometimes the NOS keeps the table > >result (because of an irrational, wild, or gambling action) even > >though the score is adjusted for the OS. In such cases, the NOS > >"could have achieved a better score," but get no redress. > > I was defining "damage", not listing criteria for redress. The fact > that damage occurred does not mean that the laws will provide redress > - there are more hurdles to clear. I should have stopped when I was ahead, leaving out the redress aspect. More accurately: Damage exists if the OS gained an advantage in the table score because of an irregularity, ("provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the offenders"--WBFLC, Lille meeting). > I hope I was appropriately careful! Me too! Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE mlfrench@writeme.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 2 05:08:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41J6aV23637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 05:06:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f41J6St23596 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 05:06:30 +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 14ufTZ-0001NL-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 May 2001 19:06:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 16:00:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B831@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B831@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 > >It is not my choice to be involved as an object in a split up of BLML. >My experience with e-mail debating groups does not go further than BLML but >I consider that sufficient. There certainly is no reason to have discussions >stopped as soon as 'one of us' has given his opinion. We make our mistakes >once in a while and it even happens that we do not agree amongst ourselves. >But if all three of us have the same opinion in a case, it would be a good >idea to be somewhat reluctant with still having objections. This is reasonable - if we know that you have the same opinion. But when only one of you has expressed an opinion, it is not always obvious that all three of you have the same opinion. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 2 05:52:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41JoHH24892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 05:50:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f41JoCt24888 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 05:50:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.113.109] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14ug9w-00028q-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 01 May 2001 20:50:09 +0100 Message-ID: <00bd01c0d277$d0e9d360$6d717ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <002101c0d22e$dc5bb4a0$3ac188d1@kay> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 17:11:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn In article <002101c0d22e$dc5bb4a0$3ac188d1@kay>, Nelson/Kay Ford writes > South is dealer. > East bids 1D. > South doesn't notice and bids 1H. > Director is called. > If I understand the Law, South has accepted the > 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the > auction continues normally. > > Now what if East opens 2D, > South again bids 1H without noticing. This is quite interesting, and I've ruled it twice at the table. My take on this is that West can accept, failing which South must make a legal call. L27B " ... must be corrected ...". In other words the IB has condoned the COOT, but itself is an infraction. I think it would be difficult to construct any other interpretation of this one. Eh? I find it almost impossible to construe Laws 28 and 29 in a way that supports this interpretation. If it is South's turn to call, and he opens the bidding without noticing that East has opened it in front of him, he has *not* condoned East's action. His (South's) call is considered to be in rotation; East's opening bid (whatever it was) ceases to exist (so there is no question of South's bid over it being insufficient); and West has UI. It happens on occasion that, with South dealer, East opens the bidding, and (then) so does South. Everybody says "Oh", and then the table decides that South's action has legitimised East's, and the auction continues. This appears to me to be an error. South's action may legitimise East's only if he so elects - and, to my way of thinking, this "election" cannot be involuntary; it must be a conscious choice. 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 May 2 06:30:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41KUOI24916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 06:30:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f41KUHt24912 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 06:30:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-76-139.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.76.139]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f41KU6H15563; Tue, 1 May 2001 21:30:06 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <006c01c0d27d$79f024a0$8b4c063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 21:08:08 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn > > Just for clarification. I know a LOOT is an irregularity > (and thus may be excluded from any claim if there is > an objection) but isn't a LOOT *condoned* a legal play? > The act of condoning makes it legal, just as condoning > an insufficient bid creates a legal (if unusual) auction. > I think this makes sense because there is never an > adjustment for a LOOT condoned even if the LOOTer > benefits. This differs from the treatment of > eg a revoke. > > Tim West-Meads > +=+ It seems right that a condoned LOOT is a legal play. I puzzled about the motivation for the question: perhaps you are saying that the LOOT of the JD is condoned by declarer's acceptance of it by facing his cards? Pace Messrs Landau and Burn. That brings us back to the point of claim with the JD lead on the table and no card played to it. Was there some further angle? I have thought of no way in which a LOOT can be condoned after the point of claim. ~ 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 May 2 07:06:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41L6JT24943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 07:06:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f41L6Ct24939 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 07:06:13 +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 f41L67805819 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 17:06:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010501164831.00b545b0@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, 01 May 2001 17:07:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn In-Reply-To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B835@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:07 PM 5/1/01, Roger wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Kooijman, A. > >| South is dealer. >| East bids 1D. >| South doesn't notice and bids 1H. >| Director is called. >| If I understand the Law, South has accepted the >| 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the >| auction continues normally. >| >| Now what if East opens 2D, >| South again bids 1H without noticing. >| Is the correct ruling that the 2D bid is accepted >| but that the insufficient 1H bid also stands, >| or is South required to make the 1H bid sufficient? >| Or is the bid out of turn canceled? >| >| Nelson Ford >| >| Very good questions, especially in the combination of them. >| >| Let me tell you about the in the European BL generally accepted and >| by instruction taught approach. >| >| We need law 28B and law 29, which seem to read contradictory to each >| other, sorry, sorry, sorry. >| >| 28B says that in these cases the 1H bid is the opening call (since >| it was south's turn to call) and east's call is cancelled. >| >| 29 says that after a COOT LHO may accept the C and does so by >calling >| himself (may be it doesn't say so: what is the meaning of 'elect' >here? It >| suggests the awareness of a choice, but if south doesn't notice the >COOT >| there is no awareness. Has David Burn an opinion here?) >| >| We solve this contradiction by asking south what his intention was: >opening >| or following and apply 28 or 29 as the case will be. In case of an >| insufficient overcall when accepting the C it seems a good idea to >| explain the consequences of accepting. >| I don't have any problem with telling this before asking for south's >choice, >| though that might influence his 'intention'. I am waiting for those >of you >| who do not agree with that last approach, their view can't be >ignored. >| >| ton > >Yes, it looks to be a way to make L28 and L29 coherent. But I point >to the following: > >Both laws are written in the absolute without condition on what is in >the mind- 28B if the skipped player calls the COOT is canceled as if >it did not happen; 29A- after a COOT if LHO calls it stands. > >A player who points to L28B should expect that it requires the COOT be >cancelled. A player who points to L29A should expect that it requires >the COOT stand. That this is a distressing situation is not the fault >of the player, the player is merely following the law. > >As for the EBL approach which rests on mind reading, it seems right >that only the intention of the player at the time of his call ought to >be considered. Presumably this player had the opportunity penalize the >COOT, did he not? Providing for the opportunity to change his >intention makes for three bites of the apple and that does not seem >right at all. > >But I do not look favorably upon mind reading for resolving the >situation [the call by the player, as opposed to the problem with the >law]. It is my thinking that players have a duty to pay attention to >the game. Therefore it is their responsibility to condone or penalize >a COOT. If an exception is made it should be the case where he did >not have time to react to the COOT- such as when he himself was in the >act of making his call. It must be right to provide the player a >small chance to avoid being penalized for the act of condoning an >infraction he probably was not aware of. It is therefore reasonable >to provide a L28B like avenue for players. My view is to require by >fiat that there is a short time of perhaps one second where such a >state of affairs exist after a COOT when a call by the proper player >cancels the COOT without penalty. I don't understand why we are finding a contradiction in these laws, or why there's a problem here. Someone opens out of turn. The correct dealer can only do one of two things: (a) If he calls, L28B applies, auction proceeds, COOT is UI to O's pard, end of story. (b) If he calls attention to the irregularity (by, say, not calling), he must summon the TD per L9, who will apply L29. He may "elect to call" (L29A, which says that by calling the TD he has not lost the option of proceding as in (a)), "otherwise..." (L29B). In both of Nelson's cases, South has called 1H before calling the TD, case (a). What's the problem? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 2 07:37:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41LbJL29404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 07:37:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f41LbDt29387 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 07:37:14 +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 OAA21860; Tue, 1 May 2001 14:37:05 -0700 Message-Id: <200105012137.OAA21860@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 May 2001 17:07:51 EDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20010501164831.00b545b0@127.0.0.1> Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 14:37:04 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > I don't understand why we are finding a contradiction in these laws, or > why there's a problem here. > > Someone opens out of turn. The correct dealer can only do one of two > things: > > (a) If he calls, L28B applies, auction proceeds, COOT is UI to O's > pard, end of story. > > (b) If he calls attention to the irregularity (by, say, not calling), > he must summon the TD per L9, who will apply L29. He may "elect to > call" (L29A, which says that by calling the TD he has not lost the > option of proceding as in (a)), "otherwise..." (L29B). > > In both of Nelson's cases, South has called 1H before calling the TD, > case (a). What's the problem? The potential problem, as I see it, is that there's nothing that says L29A applies only when the TD is called. In any other situation, if someone called out of turn and offender's LHO made a call, and then the TD were called, the TD would rule that L29A applies. Thus, in the situation described, where offender's LHO (who happens to be the correct caller) has made a call, L29A should apply just as well as it should in any other situation. The problem here is that L28B applies as well, and neither Law contains a statement that one should take precedence over the other. Thus, there seems to be an ambiguity; if the TD were called at that point, both Laws would seem to apply. The reason I think L28B clearly takes precedence is that it describes the situation with more specificity, or something like that. L28B discusses what happens when the correct caller calls "before a penalty has been assessed"; L29A doesn't have any similar conditions on it. There seems to be a principle of interpretation that if, when deciding which of two Laws is supposed to apply to a situation, one is significantly less general than the other, then the less general one takes precedence. I believe this principle applies here. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 2 08:02:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41M0rx06506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 08:00:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f35.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.35]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f41M0lt06472 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 08:00:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 May 2001 15:00:40 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.26 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 May 2001 22:00:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.26] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 15:00:39 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 May 2001 22:00:40.0043 (UTC) FILETIME=[28EEC3B0:01C0D28A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >I don't understand why we are finding a contradiction in these laws, or why >there's a problem here. In all this I've found 2 potential problems. 1. I don't see the law dealing with 2 simultaneous calls neither by the person whose turn it was to call. Is the first one around from whose turn it actually was considered to be the prior call? 2. It's not apparent to me which laws you'd use to deal with this situation: (Wicked fast, Normal, Empty-handed, & Sloth) W N E S P 1H P 2C 2H 3H (simultaneously) -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 May 2 09:02:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f41N0p707711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 09:00:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f41N0lt07707 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 09:00:47 +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 JAA28323 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 09:05:38 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 02 May 2001 08:52:37 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Failure to Alert? and personal note To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 08:59:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 02/05/2001 08:57:06 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael wrote: [snip] >Neither the natural nor either Unusual 2NT is Alertable >in the ACBL in this auction. 3D is systemically Unusual >vs. Unusual if 2NT shows D+H, or a limit raise for clubs >if 2NT is C+D; it is natural if 2NT is natural. [snip] Many SOs have regulations stating that certain types of calls are not to be alerted. In Australia, these calls are known as *self-alerting*. To avoid paradox, SOs with self-alerting regulations should follow either or both of these two paths: a) All calls subsequent to a self-alerting call are also self-alerting; and/or, b) Unexpected self-alerting calls should be pre-alerted. For example, in Australia, all doubles are self-alerting. Therefore, my partner and I pre-alert that we do not play negative doubles. Before pre-alerts were introduced to the Australian regs, this amusing auction occurred: Pard RHO Me LHO 1H 2C Double 3C Pass Pass Double All pass RHO asked pard if my final double was penalties, and was told that both of my doubles were penalties. 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 May 2 16:44:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f426hWC28489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:43:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f426hOt28485 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:43:25 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA03542; Wed, 2 May 2001 08:43:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed May 02 08:42:53 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 <01K32Z2POAEG005KUB@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 02 May 2001 08:43:01 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 02 May 2001 08:42:15 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 08:42:59 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Bid out of turn To: "'John (MadDog) Probst'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B839@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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f426hRt28486 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > In article <002101c0d22e$dc5bb4a0$3ac188d1@kay>, Nelson/Kay Ford > writes > > South is dealer. > > East bids 1D. > > South doesn't notice and bids 1H. > > Director is called. > > If I understand the Law, South has accepted the > > 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the > > auction continues normally. > >   > > Now what if East opens 2D, > > South again bids 1H without noticing. > > This is quite interesting, and I've ruled it twice at the table. My > take on this is that West can accept, failing which South must make a > legal call. L27B " ... must be corrected ...". In other > words the IB > has condoned the COOT, but itself is an infraction. I think > it would be > difficult to construct any other interpretation of this one. May be here we have the explanation for the somewhat difficult conversations BLML has. If you had read some of the other answers you could have known that other interpretations are quite possible. So much so that yours can be discarded as wrong. 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 May 2 16:52:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f426qXj28505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:52:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f426qRt28501 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:52:28 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA13194; Wed, 2 May 2001 08:52:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed May 02 08:51:55 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 <01K32ZE0K41I0063TF@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 02 May 2001 08:52:08 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 02 May 2001 08:51:22 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 08:52:04 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Bid out of turn To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B83A@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 > > South is dealer. > > East bids 1D. > > South doesn't notice and bids 1H. > > Director is called. > > If I understand the Law, South has accepted the > > 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the > > auction continues normally. > > > > Now what if East opens 2D, > > South again bids 1H without noticing. > John: > This is quite interesting, and I've ruled it twice at the table. My > take on this is that West can accept, failing which South must make a > legal call. L27B " ... must be corrected ...". In other > words the IB > has condoned the COOT, but itself is an infraction. I think > it would be > difficult to construct any other interpretation of this one. > David: > Eh? I find it almost impossible to construe Laws 28 and 29 in > a way that > supports this interpretation. If it is South's turn to call, and he > opens the bidding without noticing that East has opened it in front of > him, he has *not* condoned East's action. His (South's) call is > considered to be in rotation; East's opening bid (whatever it was) > ceases to exist (so there is no question of South's bid over it being > insufficient); and West has UI. > > It happens on occasion that, with South dealer, East opens > the bidding, > and (then) so does South. Everybody says "Oh", and then the table > decides that South's action has legitimised East's, and the auction > continues. This appears to me to be an error. South's action may > legitimise East's only if he so elects - and, to my way of thinking, > this "election" cannot be involuntary; it must be a conscious choice. > So we (you and I) agree on this, which makes further deliberations less useful (don't ask me how much less). But then we start disagreeing. It makes sense to ask south whether he made this conscious choice and if so the auction started with east bidding 1D, 2D. Why don't you support that approach? 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 Wed May 2 17:22:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f427Lj928528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 17:21:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f427Lct28524 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 17:21:39 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA05107; Wed, 2 May 2001 09:21:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed May 02 09:21:09 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 <01K330ED5TC6006494@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 02 May 2001 09:20:39 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 02 May 2001 09:19:53 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 09:20:38 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Bid out of turn To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B83B@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 > > > >| South is dealer. > >| East bids 1D. > >| South doesn't notice and bids 1H. > >| Director is called. > >| If I understand the Law, South has accepted the > >| 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the > >| auction continues normally. > >| > >| Now what if East opens 2D, > >| South again bids 1H without noticing. > >| Is the correct ruling that the 2D bid is accepted > >| but that the insufficient 1H bid also stands, > >| or is South required to make the 1H bid sufficient? > >| Or is the bid out of turn cancelled? > >| > >| Nelson Ford > >| > >| Very good questions, especially in the combination of them. > >| > >| Let me tell you about the in the European BL generally accepted and > >| by instruction taught approach. > >| > >| We need law 28B and law 29, which seem to read > contradictory to each > >| other, sorry, sorry, sorry. > >| > >| 28B says that in these cases the 1H bid is the opening call (since > >| it was south's turn to call) and east's call is cancelled. > >| > >| 29 says that after a COOT LHO may accept the C and does so by > >calling > >| himself (may be it doesn't say so: what is the meaning of 'elect' > >here? It > >| suggests the awareness of a choice, but if south doesn't notice the > >COOT > >| there is no awareness. Has David Burn an opinion here?) > >| > >| We solve this contradiction by asking south what his intention was: > >opening > >| or following and apply 28 or 29 as the case will be. In case of an > >| insufficient overcall when accepting the C it seems a good idea to > >| explain the consequences of accepting. > >| I don't have any problem with telling this before asking > for south's > >choice, > >| though that might influence his 'intention'. I am waiting for those > >of you > >| who do not agree with that last approach, their view can't be > >ignored. > >| > >| ton > > > >Yes, it looks to be a way to make L28 and L29 coherent. But I point > >to the following: > > > >Both laws are written in the absolute without condition on what is in > >the mind- 28B if the skipped player calls the COOT is canceled as if > >it did not happen; 29A- after a COOT if LHO calls it stands. > > > >A player who points to L28B should expect that it requires > the COOT be > >cancelled. A player who points to L29A should expect that it requires > >the COOT stand. That this is a distressing situation is not > the fault > >of the player, the player is merely following the law. > > > >As for the EBL approach which rests on mind reading, it seems right > >that only the intention of the player at the time of his > call ought to > >be considered. Presumably this player had the opportunity > penalize the > >COOT, did he not? Providing for the opportunity to change his > >intention makes for three bites of the apple and that does not seem > >right at all. > > > >But I do not look favorably upon mind reading for resolving the > >situation [the call by the player, as opposed to the problem with the > >law]. It is my thinking that players have a duty to pay attention to > >the game. Therefore it is their responsibility to condone > or penalize > >a COOT. If an exception is made it should be the case where he did > >not have time to react to the COOT- such as when he himself > was in the > >act of making his call. It must be right to provide the player a > >small chance to avoid being penalized for the act of condoning an > >infraction he probably was not aware of. It is therefore reasonable > >to provide a L28B like avenue for players. My view is to require by > >fiat that there is a short time of perhaps one second where such a > >state of affairs exist after a COOT when a call by the proper player > >cancels the COOT without penalty. > > I don't understand why we are finding a contradiction in > these laws, or > why there's a problem here. > > Someone opens out of turn. The correct dealer can only do one of two > things: > > (a) If he calls, L28B applies, auction proceeds, COOT is UI to O's > pard, end of story. > > (b) If he calls attention to the irregularity (by, say, not calling), > he must summon the TD per L9, who will apply L29. He may "elect to > call" (L29A, which says that by calling the TD he has not lost the > option of proceding as in (a)), "otherwise..." (L29B). > > In both of Nelson's cases, South has called 1H before calling the TD, > case (a). What's the problem? > Why don't you see it? If a player opens the bidding OOT it is accepted if his LHO makes a call. This is also a right LHO has. if he makes a call the general approach is that the COOT is therewith accepted. Do we agree that with south declarer an opening call OOT by west and north is automatically accepted by a call from north and east? Is it right not to give that same opportunity to declarer in case his RHO opens OOT? And it doesn't matter whether this COOT was accepted deliberately or by not noticing it. And it doesn't matter whether the TD was called or not. Even if LHO noticed the COOT he may elect to call without summoning the TD. In this example north nor east has another possibility: accepting or not. If not the opening call goes to south. The only one with another possibility is declarer. But let us not make it his only possibility. ton (this was probably my last contribution to this problem) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 2 18:18:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f428IQJ15745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 18:18:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f428IJt15712 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 18:18:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.56.130] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14urpv-0004Mw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 02 May 2001 09:18:16 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c0d2e0$52754be0$82387ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B83A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:17:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: > > > South is dealer. > > > East bids 1D. > > > South doesn't notice and bids 1H. > > > Director is called. > > > If I understand the Law, South has accepted the > > > 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the > > > auction continues normally. > > > > > > Now what if East opens 2D, > > > South again bids 1H without noticing. > > > So we (you and I) agree on this, which makes further deliberations less > useful (don't ask me how much less). But then we start disagreeing. It makes > sense to ask south whether he made this conscious choice and if so the > auction started with east bidding 1D, 2D. Why don't you support that > approach? Oh, I don't so much mind asking him if he was bidding 1H over 1D, or whether he was just opening 1H. But I don't think it's going to be very useful in practice asking a man whether he was deliberately making an insufficient bid over what he knew to be an opening of 2D. That, as my Latin master used to say, is a question expecting the answer "No". David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 2 19:29:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f429T5h10704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 19:29:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f429Sst10645 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 19:28:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f429Skf18248 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 May 2001 10:28:46 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 10:28 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn 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: <006c01c0d27d$79f024a0$8b4c063e@dodona> Grattan wrote: > > Just for clarification. I know a LOOT is an irregularity > > (and thus may be excluded from any claim if there is > > an objection) but isn't a LOOT *condoned* a legal play? > > The act of condoning makes it legal, just as condoning > > an insufficient bid creates a legal (if unusual) auction. > > I think this makes sense because there is never an > > adjustment for a LOOT condoned even if the LOOTer > > benefits. This differs from the treatment of > > eg a revoke. > > > > Tim West-Meads > > > +=+ It seems right that a condoned LOOT is a legal > play. I puzzled about the motivation for the question: > perhaps you are saying that the LOOT of the JD is > condoned by declarer's acceptance of it by facing > his cards? Pace Messrs Landau and Burn. > That brings us back to the point of claim with the > JD lead on the table and no card played to it. Was > there some further angle? I have thought of no way in > which a LOOT can be condoned after the point of claim. My motivation is simply to suggest that claims are judged in a way I feel to be equitable in the scenario where the claim statement itself involves a LOOT. Here are the steps. a) Does the LOOT damage the non-claimer: NO: claim breaks down, adjudicate all normal lines. YES: Go to b) b) Does the TD believe the claimer might have LOOTed were play to have continued? NO: claim breaks down, adjudicate all normal lines. YES: go to c) c) Does the TD believe non-claimers might have condoned the LOOT NO: claim breaks down, adjudicate all normal lines. YES: Adjudicate claim as containing a legal LOOT condoned. I genuinely believe that both parties at the table would feel such a ruling to be equitable and that the ruling would be consistent with the guideline "only claims involving legal plays should be considered". Please note that I consider a LOOT during a claim as being "normal for any class of player" *if, and only if,* it forms part of the claim statement. Hopefully this also addresses the concerns raised by Robin on claim/concession differences. I remain convinced that penalty tricks for a revoke may never be adjudicated as part of a claim. This leaves us with the situation where declarer states a revoke that actually costs him a trick. Ideally I think the TD should have the option to include that trick as part of the non-claimer's equity (if he thinks it would have occurred if played out). I now accept the current laws do not give that option and my feelings about the equity of the status quo are not strong. 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 May 2 19:42:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f429fwk15303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 19:41:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.link.net (mail.link.net [213.131.64.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f429fpt15265 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 19:41:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from link.net ([65.199.142.38]) by mail.link.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Wed, 2 May 2001 12:41:44 +0200 Message-ID: <3AEFE581.AFAC456F@link.net> Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 12:46:25 +0200 From: "S.S" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If alerts are a matter of regulations, and there was failure to conform to these regulations. On which laws does a director base his rulings ? International or also depends where we are?! Sandra PS: How do I send only David Stevenson wrote: > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 2 20:06:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42A6l523974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 20:06:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from big.litech.lviv.ua (big.litech.lviv.ua [193.232.65.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f42A6bt23918 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 20:06:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from litech.lviv.ua (dip-228.litech.net [194.44.44.228]) (using SSLv3 with cipher EXP1024-RC4-SHA (56/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by big.litech.lviv.ua (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25535B4D9; Wed, 2 May 2001 13:05:37 +0300 (EET DST) Message-ID: <3AEFDBBB.C6CD7EB9@litech.lviv.ua> Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 13:04:43 +0300 From: Geogroup Organization: Geophysical group X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: ru,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: brian@meadows.pair.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: Mailing lists in general Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: vitold Hi all:) Thx, Brian - nice post Vitold P.S. My reacrtion was delayed cause temporary am out of my provider -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 2 20:26:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42AQJI00815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 20:26:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f42AQCt00777 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 20:26:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-48.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.48]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f42AQ7025559 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 12:26:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AEFCC09.E54895D1@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 10:57:45 +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] Bid out of turn References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B835@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 Roger Pewick wrote: > > > Yes, it looks to be a way to make L28 and L29 coherent. But I point > to the following: > I agree with all that has been written in the snip above. > > As for the EBL approach which rests on mind reading, it seems right > that only the intention of the player at the time of his call ought to > be considered. Presumably this player had the opportunity penalize the > COOT, did he not? Providing for the opportunity to change his > intention makes for three bites of the apple and that does not seem > right at all. > > But I do not look favorably upon mind reading for resolving the > situation [the call by the player, as opposed to the problem with the > law]. It is my thinking that players have a duty to pay attention to > the game. Therefore it is their responsibility to condone or penalize > a COOT. If an exception is made it should be the case where he did > not have time to react to the COOT- such as when he himself was in the > act of making his call. It must be right to provide the player a > small chance to avoid being penalized for the act of condoning an > infraction he probably was not aware of. It is therefore reasonable > to provide a L28B like avenue for players. My view is to require by > fiat that there is a short time of perhaps one second where such a > state of affairs exist after a COOT when a call by the proper player > cancels the COOT without penalty. > I really don't think we need mind reading at all. In my experience, what happens at the table is that the TD arrives, asks "how can I help you", and the player will say "I didn't notice the 1Di and opened 1He". No mind reading required. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 2 21:00:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42Axwt12585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 20:59:58 +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 f42Axpt12541 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 20:59:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-73-121.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.73.121]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f42AxeH24708; Wed, 2 May 2001 11:59:41 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000801c0d2f6$fbdb1280$7949063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010501075921.00b4fc60@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 15:08:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: 01 May 2001 13:03 Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn> >West was on lead. > > But South has already won nine tricks. As I read the > laws, that must put South on lead to trick 10. > > +=+ Hi Eric, I see you follow the game. I plead guilty to uncritical belief in what I was told. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 2 21:00:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42B0UT12765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 21:00:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f42B0Mt12726 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 21:00:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-73-121.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.73.121]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f42AxgH24732; Wed, 2 May 2001 11:59:42 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000901c0d2f6$fcb545e0$7949063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brian Meadows" , "bridge-laws" References: <000701c0c975$31d25b40$d60aff3e@vnmvhhid> <001f01c0d18f$71ffec60$ce247bd5@pacific> Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn) Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 15:29:06 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Brian Meadows wrote: > > There seems to be a rather fundamental point here, and just for > once, it's got nothing to do with the TFLB. I post only rarely to > this list, but I read most of the posts, and it seems to me that > there is a perception amongst those with responsibilities at WBF > level that, once they have agreed on a response and said so, that > all further discussion of the point is superfluous. > > Now I acknowledge the status of Grattan, Ton and Kojak, but > Grattan (I think it was you who said it, certainly one of the > three of you did), while your depth of knowledge of the Laws of > the game is obvious to all, if you expect that a statement on a > specific question, even one from your lofty position within the > game's administration, is somehow going to abruptly curtail > discussion, well I'm sorry, but in that case I can only say that > you have a hell of a lot to learn about (unmoderated) mailing > lists. > . +=+ I neither have such an expectation nor consider that curtailment would be desirable. I would prefer that we did not go round and round in circles. Anything said by ton, Kojak, or myself, falls into one of two categories - mostly opinion, sometimes established corporate committee positions. We try to be clear when it is the latter since this, in the eyes of our masters, does settle the matter until a fresh committee decision is made. Apart from my personal experience that blml tends to go on arguing beyond reason, I have to take account of a position mandated to me by the WBFLC that the Committee is anxious Directors should not take guidance on bridge law from this source, which does not have the authority to decide the law questions it raises, and has requested me to bring forward from it subjects raised on which it appears desirable to have authoritative committee decisions. ~ 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 May 2 22:00:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42C0Gv03954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 22:00:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f194.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.194]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f42C09t03920 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 22:00:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 May 2001 05:00:02 -0700 Received: from 143.117.47.245 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 02 May 2001 12:00:02 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.245] From: "Alan Hill" To: dburn@btinternet.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 13:00:02 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2001 12:00:02.0632 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B5FFC80:01C0D2FF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Is it reasonable to rule against the person who caused the problem (the COOTer) where there is doubt? Alan Hill >From: "David Burn" >To: >Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn >Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 17:11:01 +0100 > >John wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 4:09 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn > > >In article <002101c0d22e$dc5bb4a0$3ac188d1@kay>, Nelson/Kay Ford > writes > > South is dealer. > > East bids 1D. > > South doesn't notice and bids 1H. > > Director is called. > > If I understand the Law, South has accepted the > > 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the > > auction continues normally. > > > > Now what if East opens 2D, > > South again bids 1H without noticing. > >This is quite interesting, and I've ruled it twice at the table. My >take on this is that West can accept, failing which South must make a >legal call. L27B " ... must be corrected ...". In other words the IB >has condoned the COOT, but itself is an infraction. I think it would be >difficult to construct any other interpretation of this one. > >Eh? I find it almost impossible to construe Laws 28 and 29 in a way that >supports this interpretation. If it is South's turn to call, and he >opens the bidding without noticing that East has opened it in front of >him, he has *not* condoned East's action. His (South's) call is >considered to be in rotation; East's opening bid (whatever it was) >ceases to exist (so there is no question of South's bid over it being >insufficient); and West has UI. > >It happens on occasion that, with South dealer, East opens the bidding, >and (then) so does South. Everybody says "Oh", and then the table >decides that South's action has legitimised East's, and the auction >continues. This appears to me to be an error. South's action may >legitimise East's only if he so elects - and, to my way of thinking, >this "election" cannot be involuntary; it must be a conscious choice. > >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/ _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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 May 2 22:44:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42Chop18139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 22:43:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f42Chit18135 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 22:43:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f42ChUa53752 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 08:43:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010502075811.00b564b0@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, 02 May 2001 08:45:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn In-Reply-To: <200105012137.OAA21860@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 05:37 PM 5/1/01, Adam wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > I don't understand why we are finding a contradiction in these > laws, or > > why there's a problem here. > > > > Someone opens out of turn. The correct dealer can only do one of two > > things: > > > > (a) If he calls, L28B applies, auction proceeds, COOT is UI to O's > > pard, end of story. > > > > (b) If he calls attention to the irregularity (by, say, not calling), > > he must summon the TD per L9, who will apply L29. He may "elect to > > call" (L29A, which says that by calling the TD he has not lost the > > option of proceding as in (a)), "otherwise..." (L29B). > > > > In both of Nelson's cases, South has called 1H before calling the TD, > > case (a). What's the problem? > >The potential problem, as I see it, is that there's nothing that says >L29A applies only when the TD is called. In any other situation, if >someone called out of turn and offender's LHO made a call, and then >the TD were called, the TD would rule that L29A applies. > >Thus, in the situation described, where offender's LHO (who happens to >be the correct caller) has made a call, L29A should apply just as well >as it should in any other situation. The problem here is that L28B >applies as well, and neither Law contains a statement that one should >take precedence over the other. Thus, there seems to be an ambiguity; >if the TD were called at that point, both Laws would seem to apply. > >The reason I think L28B clearly takes precedence is that it describes >the situation with more specificity, or something like that. L28B >discusses what happens when the correct caller calls "before a penalty >has been assessed"; L29A doesn't have any similar conditions on it. >There seems to be a principle of interpretation that if, when deciding >which of two Laws is supposed to apply to a situation, one is >significantly less general than the other, then the less general one >takes precedence. I believe this principle applies here. I read L28B as explicitly stating that it takes precedence when the COOT is followed by a call made by the correct caller: "A call... in rotation... before a penalty has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent... forfeits the right to penalize the call out of rotation..." "Forfeits the right to penalize" can only mean that L29 is not applied. The only time I see a possible conflict is when L29 is triggered first, e.g. N dealer, E bids 1C (OOT), S bids 1D, then N bids 1H. The right to penalize E's COOT is forfeited (twice!), but has the auction now gone 1C-1D to W, or 1H to E? And what's the status of N's 1H bid in the first case or S's 1D bid in the second (subject to penalty as OOT, or withdrawn without penalty, and, if the latter, subject to L16C1 or L16C2)? I'd say it's 1H to E, giving precedence to L28, on the grounds that L28B does state explicitly that "the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn", which is perforce consistent with L29A's silence on the subject, while the alternative requires us to ignore the words of L28B. It then feels right to me to withdraw S's 1D bid without penalty but subject to L16C2 (thus UI to both sides), but I can't find anything in TFLB that seems to address this. 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 May 2 23:18:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42DI7I18179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 23:18:07 +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-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 f42DI1t18175 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 23:18:02 +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 f42DHva55956 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 09:17:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010502085915.00a9b7e0@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, 02 May 2001 09:19:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Bid out of turn In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B83B@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:20 AM 5/2/01, Kooijman wrote: > > Someone opens out of turn. The correct dealer can only do one of two > > things: > > > > (a) If he calls, L28B applies, auction proceeds, COOT is UI to O's > > pard, end of story. > > > > (b) If he calls attention to the irregularity (by, say, not calling), > > he must summon the TD per L9, who will apply L29. He may "elect to > > call" (L29A, which says that by calling the TD he has not lost the > > option of proceding as in (a)), "otherwise..." (L29B). > > > > In both of Nelson's cases, South has called 1H before calling the TD, > > case (a). What's the problem? > >Why don't you see it? > >If a player opens the bidding OOT it is accepted if his LHO makes a call. >This is also a right LHO has. if he makes a call the general approach is >that the COOT is therewith accepted. Do we agree that with south >declarer an >opening call OOT by west and north is automatically accepted >by a call from north and east? Is it right not to give that same >opportunity >to declarer in case his RHO opens OOT? And it doesn't matter whether this >COOT was accepted deliberately or by not noticing it. And it doesn't >matter >whether the TD was called or not. Even if LHO noticed the COOT he may >elect >to call without summoning the TD. Of course it's right to give the same opportunity to the dealer, but players aren't allowed to make their own rulings, and such rights can only be "given" by the TD under L9B, which requires that "no player shall take any action until the Director has [ruled]". So if he follows L9B, and takes no further action (per L9B2) he gets his opportunity. But L28B seems quite clear to me: if he acts by making a "call in rotation... before a penalty has been assessed" (noting that a penalty can only be assessed if L9B has been invoked) L28B gives us explicit instructions as to how to proceed, i.e. "as though the opponent had not called at that turn...". In other words, since it clearly matters whether or not "a penalty has been assessed" before he called, it must matter perforce whether or not the TD was summoned before he called. 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 May 3 01:04:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42F4GM18261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 01:04:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe46.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f42F4At18257 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 01:04:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 May 2001 08:04:03 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.166.27] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B835@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3AEFCC09.E54895D1@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 08:30:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2001 15:04:03.0242 (UTC) FILETIME=[201760A0:01C0D319] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn | Roger Pewick wrote: | > | > | > Yes, it looks to be a way to make L28 and L29 coherent. But I point | > to the following: | > | | I agree with all that has been written in the snip above. | | > | > As for the EBL approach which rests on mind reading, it seems right | > that only the intention of the player at the time of his call ought to | > be considered. Presumably this player had the opportunity penalize the | > COOT, did he not? Providing for the opportunity to change his | > intention makes for three bites of the apple and that does not seem | > right at all. | > | > But I do not look favorably upon mind reading for resolving the | > situation [the call by the player, as opposed to the problem with the | > law]. It is my thinking that players have a duty to pay attention to | > the game. Therefore it is their responsibility to condone or penalize | > a COOT. If an exception is made it should be the case where he did | > not have time to react to the COOT- such as when he himself was in the | > act of making his call. It must be right to provide the player a | > small chance to avoid being penalized for the act of condoning an | > infraction he probably was not aware of. It is therefore reasonable | > to provide a L28B like avenue for players. My view is to require by | > fiat that there is a short time of perhaps one second where such a | > state of affairs exist after a COOT when a call by the proper player | > cancels the COOT without penalty. | > | | I really don't think we need mind reading at all. | | In my experience, what happens at the table is that the TD | arrives, asks "how can I help you", and the player will say | "I didn't notice the 1Di and opened 1He". No mind reading | required. | | -- | Herman DE WAEL | Antwerpen Belgium | http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html On what basis is the player's partner entitled to a communication not by bid or play? In this case, to the 'fact' that he did not realize the presence of the opening bid [OOT] and that 1H was intended as an opening bid as opposed to an overcall. It is my view that communicating other than by bids and plays is not bridge, and demanding or even encouraging players to do so is deleterious to the pastime. 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 Thu May 3 01:48:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42FmlQ18287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 01:48:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f42Fmft18283 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 01:48:42 +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 IAA06090; Wed, 2 May 2001 08:48:34 -0700 Message-Id: <200105021548.IAA06090@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 May 2001 08:45:14 EDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20010502075811.00b564b0@127.0.0.1> Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 08:48:33 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > I read L28B as explicitly stating that it takes precedence when the > COOT is followed by a call made by the correct caller: "A call... in > rotation... before a penalty has been assessed for a call out of > rotation by an opponent... forfeits the right to penalize the call out > of rotation..." "Forfeits the right to penalize" can only mean that > L29 is not applied. No, I think it only means that L29B and L29C are not applied. I think it's a little odd to suggest that when you have Law X that says "the right to penalize is forfeited", and Law Y that also says "the right to penalize is forfeited", that this clause in Law X constitutes an explicit statement that Law X takes precedence over Law Y. Now let X=28B and Y=29A. -- 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 May 3 03:14:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42HDVY19287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 03:13:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f42HDNt19246 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 03:13:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-76-33.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.76.33]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f42HDEH10704 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 18:13:14 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001501c0d32b$24c33040$214c063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B831@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 18:09:33 +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, May 01, 2001 4:00 PM Subject: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) > Kooijman, A. writes > > > >But if all three of us have the same opinion in a case, > >it would be a good idea to be somewhat reluctant > >with still having objections. > -------- DWS replies: > This is reasonable - if we know that you have the > same opinion. But when only one of you has expressed > an opinion, it is not always obvious that all three of you > have the same opinion. > +=+ I have just as much trouble knowing when ton disagrees with me as he has when I disagree with him. Kojak is a different matter - he can be seen to write fiercely and then wipe it all out. Perhaps ton and I should consider the cathartic benefits of this ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 3 06:28:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42KQp618029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 06:26:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f87.law14.hotmail.com [64.4.21.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f42KQkt18025 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 06:26:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 May 2001 13:26:38 -0700 Received: from 137.229.8.104 by lw14fd.law14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 02 May 2001 20:26:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [137.229.8.104] From: "Michael Schmahl" To: elandau@cais.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 12:26:38 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2001 20:26:38.0699 (UTC) FILETIME=[30D7BBB0:01C0D346] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Eric Landau > >The only time I see a possible conflict is when L29 is triggered first, >e.g. N dealer, E bids 1C (OOT), S bids 1D, then N bids 1H. The right >to penalize E's COOT is forfeited (twice!), but has the auction now >gone 1C-1D to W, or 1H to E? And what's the status of N's 1H bid in >the first case or S's 1D bid in the second (subject to penalty as OOT, >or withdrawn without penalty, and, if the latter, subject to L16C1 or >L16C2)? It seems to me that the words "before a penalty has been assessed" are very important here as well as in the original case. Once S bids 1D, the penalty has been assessed for the OOT 1C call, and (29A) the penalty has been forgone. North has now bid 1H OOT. > >I'd say it's 1H to E, giving precedence to L28, on the grounds that >L28B does state explicitly that "the auction proceeds as though the >opponent had not called at that turn", which is perforce consistent >with L29A's silence on the subject, while the alternative requires us >to ignore the words of L28B. It then feels right to me to withdraw S's >1D bid without penalty but subject to L16C2 (thus UI to both sides), >but I can't find anything in TFLB that seems to address this. > > >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/ _________________________________________________________________ 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 May 3 06:54:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42Ks7L18049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 06:54:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f42Ks0t18045 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 06:54:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-311.easynet.co.uk [212.134.25.55]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D6EC922E575 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 21:53:54 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Uncertain explanation Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 21:50:35 +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 >From a club game last night: Dealer N, NSV K Q 7 5 2 A K 6 8 A K 10 3 J 10 6 3 9 5 4 2 J 9 8 7 J 5 3 2 A K Q 10 4 J 6 9 4 2 A 8 4 Q 10 3 9 7 6 Q 8 7 5 N: 2N. 19-20 bal (may contain singleton and/or 5 card suit) E: 3D. Alerted and explained by W as: "We play ASTRO over 1N and I *think* we've agreed to play it over 2N as well in which case it shows 5-4 in spades and another suit BUT I'm really not sure". S (after some further thought): Dble All pass Result: 3Dx-2, 300 to NS and the TD is called, who gleans the following additional information. >From S: " I didn't really believe this explanation and I was tempted to pass and await developments. If I pass, West ought to be bidding, but if 3D *is* passed out I'm not sure I'll get much sympathy from the director". >From W: "If partner has spades and diamonds it shouldn't be too bad, otherwise I get another chance to mention spades. Of course, partner may just have diamonds - I said I wasn't sure". >From N: "If an unalerted 3Dx had come round to me smoothly, at the vulnerability I would have bid 3S letting partner pick the game. Although W's explanation is probably rubbish, 3S from me might be misinterpreted in the light of it. Additionally partner has asked questions and produced a slow double". +300 is a second bottom for NS, one NS scoring +200 in a spade part score. The other nine NSs all played in 4S, 8 of them scoring +650 and one +680. Suggested ruling? As a subsidiary question, would the ruling be influenced if W had said, "I'm pretty sure it's natural, but it *might* be ASTRO"? 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 May 3 07:01:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42L1pK18066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 07:01:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f92.law14.hotmail.com [64.4.21.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f42L1kt18062 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 07:01:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 May 2001 14:01:38 -0700 Received: from 137.229.8.104 by lw14fd.law14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [137.229.8.104] From: "Michael Schmahl" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Claim condones LOOT? Was: claiming out of turn Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 13:01:38 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2001 21:01:38.0569 (UTC) FILETIME=[14767790:01C0D34B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Here is an interesting hypothetical situation North immaterial West East -- -- immaterial Kx -- South -- -- AQ -- No-trump. South on lead, West leads Dx. South claims the last two tricks "winning the DQ and cashing the DA." East contests the claim, being a regular reader of BLML. According to the view held by some contributors to BLML, the line of play after the claim, *including the incomplete Trick 12* may not include an illegal play once the claim has been contested. According to this view, the LOOT must be retracted without penalty, and South loses one trick to the defense. I will still argue that, even if "the adjudicated line of play may not include an illegal play" (of which I am not yet convinced), condoning the LOOT is itself a legal play under this principle and South is entitled to the same two tricks he would have got if he had played out the last two tricks. Any ideas? -- _________________________________________________________________ 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 May 3 07:15:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42LFXO18084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 07:15:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f42LFTt18080 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 07:15:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010502211522.NELI1863895.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]>; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:15:22 +1200 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: alain gottcheiner CC: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 21:15:21 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010502211522.NELI1863895.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: alain gottcheiner > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:11:00 +0200 > To: Herman De Wael , > Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling > > >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. This is impracticable for all but top level competition. And I believe it is unreasonable even at times in top level competition. > 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 ? > West has an absolute obligation to alert. To not alert is deliberately flouting the law regarding disclosure. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North Ph 64 6 355 1259 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 3 08:16:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42MGCp18119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 08:16:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f42MG5t18115 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 08:16:07 +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 OAA02141 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 14:16:01 -0800 Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 14:15:43 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim condones LOOT? Was: claiming out of turn 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 [West has DKx, South has DAQ, West leads OOT to trick 12, South claims, East contests.] The good news is that you'll get the same ruling on this claim in Fairbanks whichever of the two directors comes to your table. :) It has always seemed clear to me that a claim immediately after a LOOT like this says "I am accepting the LOOT, since I didn't demand it be corrected, and here is what I will do next." East has the right to contest the claim, but not to whine about which option declarer exercises following the LOOT. In your case, of course, South is always winning two tricks regardless who leads to trick 12: if the LOOT isn't accepted, he just plays DQ on which West's major penalty card is played, then DA. My feeling on the larger question is that there is no such thing as a LOOT as *part of* a claim, regardless of which side the impossible line benefits, just as even David Burn doesn't force declarers who make incomplete claim statements to revoke. If the LOOT has clearly occured *before* the claim was made, it is a separate irregularly that needs to be addressed first, and LOOTer's LHO gets the usual choices before we adjudicate the claim. This is Michael's case, and also is the case when S2 was led from dummy and a notable pause occurred before declarer claimed. The only situation I am not certain about is the (very rare) case where the claim statement itself names a LOOT as the very first card claimer proposes to play, AND that the claimer would be worse off if the LOOT were accepted than if he were forced to take it back, AND it is possible to do at least that badly by some legal play of the cards. To me it seems "obvious" that we allow no irregularities of any kind to occur following a claim. It might not do any harm to insert a couple words to that effect in 70A. I am not sure we really need to, though. Seems to me that suitably vigorous use of 69B, 71A, and 71C is sufficient already to void any claim that leads to an abnormal number of tricks because of a LOOT (or any other irregularity) in the claim statement. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 3 08:25:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42MPkQ18134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 08:25:46 +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 f42MPet18130 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 08:25:41 +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 PAA13851; Wed, 2 May 2001 15:25:32 -0700 Message-Id: <200105022225.PAA13851@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Uncertain explanation In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 May 2001 21:50:35 BST." Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 15:25:31 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chas Fellows (Brambledown) wrote: > >From a club game last night: > Dealer N, NSV > > K Q 7 5 2 > A K 6 > 8 > A K 10 3 > > J 10 6 3 9 > 5 4 2 J 9 8 7 > J 5 3 2 A K Q 10 4 > J 6 9 4 2 > > A 8 4 > Q 10 3 > 9 7 6 > Q 8 7 5 > > N: 2N. 19-20 bal (may contain singleton and/or 5 card suit) Good grief. The 2NT opening already has a reputation as a "slam killer"; why someone would want to expand it to include hands with a singleton, especially suit-oriented hands like North's, and kill three times as many slams as the rest of the field, is beyond me. It would be awfully nice to reach 6C on this hand, and I seriously doubt it's possible after a 2NT opener. Oh, wait, this is a ruling question, isn't it? Never mind. > E: 3D. Alerted and explained by W as: "We play ASTRO over 1N and I > *think* we've agreed to play it over 2N as well in which case it shows 5-4 > in spades and another suit BUT I'm really not sure". > S (after some further thought): Dble > All pass > Result: 3Dx-2, 300 to NS and the TD is called, who gleans the following > additional information. > >From S: " I didn't really believe this explanation and I was tempted to pass > and await developments. If I pass, West ought to be bidding, but if 3D > *is* passed out I'm not sure I'll get much sympathy from the director". > >From W: "If partner has spades and diamonds it shouldn't be too bad, > otherwise I get another chance to mention spades. Of course, partner may > just have diamonds - I said I wasn't sure". > >From N: "If an unalerted 3Dx had come round to me smoothly, at the > vulnerability I would have bid 3S letting partner pick the game. Although > W's explanation is probably rubbish, 3S from me might be misinterpreted in > the light of it. Additionally partner has asked questions and produced a > slow double". > > +300 is a second bottom for NS, one NS scoring +200 in a spade part score. > The other nine NSs all played in 4S, 8 of them scoring +650 and one +680. No +1370? Shame. > Suggested ruling? Find out whether Astro is the actual agreement. If so, then I'd rule that the score stands. Even if West's explanation is judged to be an infraction because of its uncertainty, I don't think N-S are going to do any better than they would have if West had simply said "Astro". They would have most likely been prevented from finding their spade fit, and they're not going to get to 6C, not after that 2NT slam-killer opening. If their agreement is that 3D is natural, or if it's unclear (in which case the footnote to L75D2 applies and we should presume Mistaken Explanation), then I adjust to +680. I'd consider some weighted average of +680 and +1430, except that I don't think they'd actually get to 6S or God forbid 6C, not after that 2NT slam-killer opening. :) I do think they're likely enough to make six with the correct explanation though; assuming N-S have the correct explanation of 3D, there's a pretty good chance they'll take the spade hook after seeing the 9 fall from East and knowing that East has long diamonds. (However, I can accept a score that includes +650 in the weighting.) The fact that West was honest and said he wasn't sure that it was really Astro doesn't affect the ruling. In my view, he's muddied the waters enough to cause damage. I had a very similar situation a number of years ago: Partner RHO Me LHO 1C(1) 3H(2) pass pass X 3S 4D pass 4H (1) Precision (2) Alerted after a pause. LHO's explanation was something like "I'm not sure what it is, we play that as showing 5-5 in the majors after a natural club opening, I think it might be the same thing here but I'm not sure." RHO really meant 3H as natural, except that he was psyching---he really had spades. I might have fielded the psych without the alert. However, with the alert and hesitant explanation, there was no way I could read 4H properly---partner really had hearts, and 4H was our last making contract, but naturally I had to take it as a cue-bid, so I bid on. The director and later the AC ruled in our favor, saying that the explanation muddied the waters so much that we couldn't be expected to recover. (The opponents appealed because they thought they were being accused of improperly fielding a psych, an accusation that they've apparently had to deal with frequently.) > As a subsidiary question, would the ruling be influenced if W had said, "I'm > pretty sure it's natural, but it *might* be ASTRO"? If this was enough to scare North off bidding spades, I think I'd still rule MI. -- Adam, who is still bitter because last night I had Axx xx AKQxx AKx and decided against opening the slam-killer 2NT (20-21) in favor of 1D, and ended up in 4S on a 4-3 fit making the same number of tricks as I would have in notrump. So much for theory. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 3 09:01:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42N0Cm18165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:00:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f37.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f42N06t18161 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:00:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 May 2001 15:59:59 -0700 Received: from 172.138.53.239 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 02 May 2001 22:59:59 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.138.53.239] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim condones LOOT? Was: claiming out of turn Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 15:59:59 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2001 22:59:59.0726 (UTC) FILETIME=[9D1508E0:01C0D35B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Michael Schmahl" >Here is an interesting hypothetical situation > > North > > immaterial > > >West East >-- >-- immaterial >Kx >-- > > South > -- > -- > AQ > -- > >No-trump. South on lead, West leads Dx. South claims the last two tricks >"winning the DQ and cashing the DA." East contests the claim, being a >regular reader of BLML. > >According to the view held by some contributors to BLML, the line of play >after the claim, *including the incomplete Trick 12* may not include an >illegal play once the claim has been contested. According to this view, >the >LOOT must be retracted without penalty, and South loses one trick to the >defense. > >I will still argue that, even if "the adjudicated line of play may not >include an illegal play" (of which I am not yet convinced), condoning the >LOOT is itself a legal play under this principle and South is entitled to >the same two tricks he would have got if he had played out the last two >tricks. > >Any ideas? The lead's in S. Dx having already been played intentionally is a major penalty card. South plays DQ, DA as he claimed. It's just an alternate solution. -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 May 3 09:10:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f42NASO18192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:10:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f42NALt18188 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:10:22 +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 14v5lB-000Ez5-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 May 2001 00:10:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 00:08:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B839@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B839@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B839@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes > >> >> >> In article <002101c0d22e$dc5bb4a0$3ac188d1@kay>, Nelson/Kay Ford >> writes >> > South is dealer. >> > East bids 1D. >> > South doesn't notice and bids 1H. >> > Director is called. >> > If I understand the Law, South has accepted the >> > 1D bid out of turn by bidding after it and the >> > auction continues normally. >> >   >> > Now what if East opens 2D, >> > South again bids 1H without noticing. >> >> This is quite interesting, and I've ruled it twice at the table. My >> take on this is that West can accept, failing which South must make a >> legal call. L27B " ... must be corrected ...". In other >> words the IB >> has condoned the COOT, but itself is an infraction. I think >> it would be >> difficult to construct any other interpretation of this one. > > > >May be here we have the explanation for the somewhat difficult conversations >BLML has. If you had read some of the other answers you could have known >that other interpretations are quite possible. So much so that yours can be >discarded as wrong. > I withdrew this answer very promptly when I realised that dealer was the player who called second. I had in fact completely misunderstood the problem. It becomes more interesting when, with North dealer, East makes an OBOOT and South makes an IB. Now we're not in L28B territory at all. >ton > -- 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 May 3 10:06:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4305gf27948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 10:05:42 +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 f4305Yt27909 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 10:05:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-151.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.151]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BD5D722E121 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 01:05:26 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Uncertain explanation Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:02:03 +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: <200105022225.PAA13851@mailhub.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Adam Beneschan (Wed 02 May 2001 23:26) writes: >>Chas Fellows (Brambledown) wrote: >>From a club game last night: >>Dealer N, NSV >> >> K Q 7 5 2 >> A K 6 >> 8 >> A K 10 3 >> >> J 10 6 3 9 >> 5 4 2 J 9 8 7 >> J 5 3 2 A K Q 10 4 >> J 6 9 4 2 >> >> A 8 4 >> Q 10 3 >> 9 7 6 >> Q 8 7 5 >> >> N: 2N. 19-20 bal (may contain singleton and/or 5 card suit) > >Good grief. The 2NT opening already has a reputation as a "slam >killer"; why someone would want to expand it to include hands with a >singleton, especially suit-oriented hands like North's, and kill three >times as many slams as the rest of the field, is beyond me. It would >be awfully nice to reach 6C on this hand, and I seriously doubt it's >possible after a 2NT opener. > >Oh, wait, this is a ruling question, isn't it? Never mind. > >> E: 3D. Alerted and explained by W as: "We play ASTRO over 1N and I >> *think* we've agreed to play it over 2N as well in which case it >> shows 5-4 >> in spades and another suit BUT I'm really not sure". >> S (after some further thought): Dble >> All pass >> Result: 3Dx-2, 300 to NS and the TD is called, who gleans the following >> additional information. >> From S: " I didn't really believe this explanation and I was >> tempted to pass >> and await developments. If I pass, West ought to be bidding, but if 3D >> *is* passed out I'm not sure I'll get much sympathy from the director". >> From W: "If partner has spades and diamonds it shouldn't be too bad, >> otherwise I get another chance to mention spades. Of course, partner may >> just have diamonds - I said I wasn't sure". >> From N: "If an unalerted 3Dx had come round to me smoothly, at the >> vulnerability I would have bid 3S letting partner pick the game. >> Although W's explanation is probably rubbish, 3S from me might be >> misinterpreted in >> the light of it. Additionally partner has asked questions and >> produced a >> slow double". >> >> +300 is a second bottom for NS, one NS scoring +200 in a spade >> part score. >> The other nine NSs all played in 4S, eight of them scoring +650 and one +680. > >No +1370? Shame. > >> Suggested ruling? > >Find out whether Astro is the actual agreement. I'm sorry, I should have added under gleaned by TD: East denied any such agreement over 2N, and the EW convention card showed ASTRO over 1N, but no reference to any defence to 2N. 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 May 3 10:48:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f430mJZ13297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 10:48:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f430mCt13258 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 10:48:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14v7Ht-0006Je-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 May 2001 01:48:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:46:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Uncertain explanation References: <200105022225.PAA13851@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Brambledown writes >>Adam Beneschan (Wed 02 May 2001 23:26) writes: >>>Chas Fellows (Brambledown) wrote: >>>From a club game last night: >>>Dealer N, NSV >>> >>> K Q 7 5 2 >>> A K 6 >>> 8 >>> A K 10 3 >>> >>> J 10 6 3 9 >>> 5 4 2 J 9 8 7 >>> J 5 3 2 A K Q 10 4 >>> J 6 9 4 2 >>> >>> A 8 4 >>> Q 10 3 >>> 9 7 6 >>> Q 8 7 5 >>> >>> N: 2N. 19-20 bal (may contain singleton and/or 5 card suit) clear MI which has caused NS impossible problems W N E S 2N 3Da x AP Ruling: 30% 6C=, 20% 6S-1, 10% 6S=, 30% 5S=, 10% 5S+1 likely auction: 2N 3D x P 3S P 4S P 5D P ?? possible continuations: 1) .... 6C (b) AP 30% (b) pass or correct 2) .... 5S AP 40% less likely to make 12 3) .... 6S AP 30% more likely to make 12 -- 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 May 3 11:17:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f431GnR23681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 11:16:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f431Ggt23645 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 11:16:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.03.02.00 201-232-124 license f747fce8063b429e7fcd66ee14ce8c58) with SMTP id <20010503011843.WXBZ5341.amsmta04-svc@witz> for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 03:18:43 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010503031720.010fedb0@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, 03 May 2001 03:17:20 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: <3AEFE581.AFAC456F@link.net> References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:46 PM 02-05-01 +0200, you wrote: >If alerts are a matter of regulations, and there was failure to conform to >these regulations. >On which laws does a director base his rulings ? International or also >depends where we are?! > L20,21 should be the ones. the ruling is based on the alert procedure of the NBO hope this will hep regards, anton >Sandra > >PS: How do I send only > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> 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/ > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > Anton Witzen.!!! warning: new email:a.witzen@chello.nl Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 3 12:06:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4325mL11132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 12:05:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4325ft11094 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 12:05:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.120.20] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14v8Up-0003e2-00; Thu, 03 May 2001 03:05:36 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01c0d375$6afbdfe0$14787ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Alan Hill" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 03:04:39 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Hill" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn > Is it reasonable to rule against the person who caused the problem > (the COOTer) where there is doubt? > Alan Hill Bridge isn't cricket - there is no real question of "the benefit of doubt", except in the case of a bogus claim. Even here, the consensus appears to be that doubtful points should be resolved in favour of the claimer because he is a jolly good fellow who, despite not knowing what cards he or anyone else might have left in their hands, or from which hand he is currently obliged to lead, has nevertheless taken the trouble to speed up the game. As a reward, he is no longer expected to suffer the consequences of any carelessness that he might have committed - even those carelessnesses that he has announced that he is going to commit - for after a claim, rationality ceases. Nor is there any real question of ruling "for" or "against" anyone. The Laws are supposed to deal with whatever situation might arise, and all that one ever has to do is rule in accordance with them. This, it must be said, is sometimes quite difficult, but that is not the point. Laws 28 and 29 say what they say. Ton Kooijman, Grattan Endicott and Bill Schoder say what they say. With all this to guide us, how can we possibly go wrong? 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 May 3 15:24:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f435OAt22224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 15:24:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f435O4t22220 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 15:24:05 +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 f435P6V02777 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 22:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001101c0d391$3b17ad60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <3AEFE581.AFAC456F@link.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 22:23:41 -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 S.S" < > If alerts are a matter of regulations, and there was failure to conform to > these regulations. > On which laws does a director base his rulings ? International or also > depends where we are?! Law 21. B. 1 Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA > > Sandra > > PS: How do I send only > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > 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/ > > -- > ==================================================================== ==== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 3 17:04:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4373gu24676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 17:03:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4373at24672 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 17:03:36 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA04011; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:03:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu May 03 09:03:01 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 <01K34E31ABWO00670I@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 03 May 2001 09:03:11 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 03 May 2001 09:02:24 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 09:03:08 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B83F@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > > Kooijman, A. writes > > > > > >But if all three of us have the same opinion in a case, > > >it would be a good idea to be somewhat reluctant > > >with still having objections. > > > -------- DWS replies: > > This is reasonable - if we know that you have the > > same opinion. But when only one of you has expressed > > an opinion, it is not always obvious that all three of you > > have the same opinion. > > > +=+ I have just as much trouble knowing when ton > disagrees with me as he has when I disagree with him. > Kojak is a different matter - he can be seen to write > fiercely and then wipe it all out. Perhaps ton and I > should consider the cathartic benefits of this > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I didn't get many complaints in my life about being vaque in my statements. 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 May 3 17:14:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f437EUL24696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 17:14:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f437EMt24692 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 17:14:23 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA03983; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:14:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu May 03 09:13:50 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 <01K34EGAIQY80066NB@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 03 May 2001 09:13:52 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 03 May 2001 09:13:05 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 09:13:51 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: [BLML] collecting the facts To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B840@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 One of my dear countrymen told you about a question in an examination with a claim from declarer in trick 10. After declarer (south) had won 9 tricks and west on lead in trick 10 etc. I decided to do my job as TD and to find out what really happened. Well 9 tricks were probably won, but the question just talked about 9 tricks being played. And yes according to the answer the statement by declarer constituted an established revoke and declarer lost 2 tricks. Any objections? 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 May 3 17:19:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f437JZN24709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 17:19:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f437JSt24705 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 17:19:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA07188; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:19:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu May 03 09:18:59 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 <01K34EMLQ1SY0066NB@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 03 May 2001 09:18:57 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 03 May 2001 09:18:10 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 09:18:53 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Bid out of turn To: "'John (MadDog) Probst'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B841@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: > >May be here we have the explanation for the somewhat > difficult conversations > >BLML has. If you had read some of the other answers you > could have known > >that other interpretations are quite possible. So much so > that yours can be > >discarded as wrong. > > John: > I withdrew this answer very promptly when I realised that > dealer was the > player who called second. I had in fact completely misunderstood the > problem. It becomes more > interesting when, with North dealer, East makes an OBOOT and > South makes > an IB. Now we're not in L28B territory at all. ton: Thanks for this very constructive approach. But don't ask for more interesting problems, it is a mess already and we don't survive those. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 3 19:44:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f439hwv25158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 19:43:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f439hpt25154 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 19:43:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-106.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.106]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f439hkn29276 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 11:43:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AF1143D.5CFC1855@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:18:05 +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] Bid out of turn References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B835@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3AEFCC09.E54895D1@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: > > | > | I really don't think we need mind reading at all. > | > | In my experience, what happens at the table is that the TD > | arrives, asks "how can I help you", and the player will say > | "I didn't notice the 1Di and opened 1He". No mind reading > | required. > | > > On what basis is the player's partner entitled to a communication not > by bid or play? In this case, to the 'fact' that he did not realize > the presence of the opening bid [OOT] and that 1H was intended as an > opening bid as opposed to an overcall. > > It is my view that communicating other than by bids and plays is not > bridge, and demanding or even encouraging players to do so is > deleterious to the pastime. > You are of course right, but I did not say it was desirable, it just happens that way. OK, let's suppose they remain schtum. You arrive at the table and they point to the various bids. Your first question will certainly be: in what order were those put on the table. If now they still fail to say (any of the four of them) what happened, then they are being deliberately uncommunicative. Do you really want to give TD's the advice to take all 4 players off the table separately ? Besides, in your ruling, you will incorporate elements of the answers. Good players will know what really happened from your ruling. And to finish, it's not a crime to give UI, only to receive 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 May 3 20:33:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f43AXhA25211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 20:33:44 +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 f43AXYt25203 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 20:33:35 +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 14vGQJ-000FCM-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 May 2001 10:33:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 14:19:36 +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> <3AEFE581.AFAC456F@link.net> In-Reply-To: <3AEFE581.AFAC456F@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 >If alerts are a matter of regulations, and there was failure to conform to >these regulations. >On which laws does a director base his rulings ? International or also >depends where we are?! The regulations are based on the Laws, and the Laws are international. There is a Law, number 21, that deals with misinformation. Failure to make an alert when the regulations require it, or making an alert when the regulations do not require it, is misinformation, so that particular Law applies. What the Law says, paraphrased, is that when misinformation comes to light, including alerting wrongly or failure to alert: [a] The last call or play by the non-offenders may be changed [b] There may be an adjusted score given at the end of the hand. The Director will advise accordingly. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 3 20:33:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f43AXhD25210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 20:33:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f43AXYt25202 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 20:33:34 +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 14vGQJ-000BJ5-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 May 2001 10:33:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 14:22:05 +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> <001e01c0d18f$71474ac0$ce247bd5@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001e01c0d18f$71474ac0$ce247bd5@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: David Stevenson >> S.S writes >> >What if it is an international event, >> > what laws apply ? >> >There must be some international >> > law, or am I wrong ? >> 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. >+=+ Well, no...... you must go to your NBO for >the answer to the question. This mailing list >is unofficial and cannot substitute for the answer >from the proper authority. Grattan's is a very precise, technical answer, but in practical terms there is nothing to stop people giving advice to others, advice that is often extremely difficult to find 'officially', so please do ask such questions here. I am at the moment trying to find out the Egyptian alerting regulations for 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 Thu May 3 21:53:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f43BqhB29436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 21:52:43 +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 f43BqZt29396 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 21:52:36 +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 f43BqVZ93713 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 07:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010503074733.00b6ddf0@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, 03 May 2001 07:54:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn 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 04:26 PM 5/2/01, Michael wrote: >It seems to me that the words "before a penalty has been assessed" are >very important here as well as in the original case. Once S bids 1D, >the penalty has been assessed for the OOT 1C call, and (29A) the >penalty has been forgone. North has now bid 1H OOT. L10A: "The Director alone has the right to assess penalties when applicable. Players do not have the right to assess (or waive) penalties on their own initiative." Thus my contention that anything the players do prior to calling the TD must be considered to be "before a penalty has been assessed". 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 May 4 02:05:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f43G4iJ11343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 02:04:44 +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 (oe52.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f43G4ct11339 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 02:04:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:04:31 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.165.220] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B835@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3AEFCC09.E54895D1@village.uunet.be> <3AF1143D.5CFC1855@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 11:04:39 -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: 03 May 2001 16:04:31.0999 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD6980F0:01C0D3EA] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Apologies to Herman for a separate post- You ask a player what happened and they respond with their reasoning why it happened. This is not responsive to the request and it is a communication to partner other than by bid or play. It might be worthwhile to surmise the cause of [a] the response received and [b] the attitude that brought forth the response. Could it be that it what was learned you get be scores that way? Might it be the phraseology of the asker? Whatever. but if the player is not taught what the repercussions are for their breach of propriety it is the same as teaching them that their behavior is correct. Surely, it is no excuse that it happens that way. regards roger pewick ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 3:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn | Roger Pewick wrote: | > | > | | > | I really don't think we need mind reading at all. | > | | > | In my experience, what happens at the table is that the TD | > | arrives, asks "how can I help you", and the player will say | > | "I didn't notice the 1Di and opened 1He". No mind reading | > | required. | > | | > | > On what basis is the player's partner entitled to a communication not | > by bid or play? In this case, to the 'fact' that he did not realize | > the presence of the opening bid [OOT] and that 1H was intended as an | > opening bid as opposed to an overcall. | > | > It is my view that communicating other than by bids and plays is not | > bridge, and demanding or even encouraging players to do so is | > deleterious to the pastime. | > | | You are of course right, but I did not say it was desirable, | it just happens that way. | | OK, let's suppose they remain schtum. | You arrive at the table and they point to the various bids. | Your first question will certainly be: in what order were | those put on the table. | If now they still fail to say (any of the four of them) what | happened, then they are being deliberately uncommunicative. | Do you really want to give TD's the advice to take all 4 | players off the table separately ? | | Besides, in your ruling, you will incorporate elements of | the answers. Good players will know what really happened | from your ruling. | | And to finish, it's not a crime to give UI, only to receive | 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/ | -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 4 13:06:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4433s029234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 13:03:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4433nt29206 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 13:03:49 +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 NAA13288 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 13:08:44 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 04 May 2001 12:55:36 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Irrational claim To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 13:02:34 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/05/2001 01:00:04 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Last night, I played in a 4S contract, losing three early tricks. In the six card ending I claimed +620. Although the opponents held all the high red cards, I held the three outstanding trumps, plus three *good* clubs. RHO objected to my claim. I was astounded when he produced *another* Ace of clubs, since I had irrationally assumed that that card had been played earlier. So we mutually agreed to modify my claim to 4S -100. After we started play on the next board, I realised that my RHO's acquiescence in my revised claim might also have been irrational. So I therefore summoned the TD against my own interests, asking if he could further reduce my score to -300. I pointed out to the TD that since I irrationally thought that all my cards were high, I might randomly play all my trumps on tricks 8 to 10 before touching clubs, allowing RHO to win the Ace of clubs plus two red-suit tricks. The TD ruled that cashing all my trumps first would have been irrational, letting me retain a mere -100 on the board. Was the TD's ruling irrational? Would it have been irrational for me to have appealed? Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 4 16:05:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4464XC03432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 16:04:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4464Qt03390 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 16:04:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 23:00:29 -0700 Message-ID: <006601c0d460$08fe3400$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <3AEFE581.AFAC456F@link.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 23:04:03 -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" Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 6:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure > S.S writes > >If alerts are a matter of regulations, and there was failure to conform to > >these regulations. > >On which laws does a director base his rulings ? International or also > >depends where we are?! > > The regulations are based on the Laws, and the Laws are international. > There is a Law, number 21, that deals with misinformation. Failure to > make an alert when the regulations require it, or making an alert when > the regulations do not require it, is misinformation, so that particular > Law applies. Actually L21 doesn't mention non-required Alerts. Since they are a violation of the alert regulations that are in effect, the TD can point to L40B/C as a basis for handling them. These rarely are a source of MI. More likely is a mistaken explanation of the alerted call's agreed meaning, which is clearly MI. > > What the Law says, paraphrased, is that when misinformation comes to > light, including alerting wrongly or failure to alert: > [a] The last call or play by the non-offenders may be changed (but only if it is likely that the call or play was made as a result of the MI.) Paraphrasing ought not to omit important elements of the text being rephrased. > [b] There may be an adjusted score given at the end of the hand. > > The Director will advise accordingly. > 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 May 4 17:58:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f447w4705226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 17:58:04 +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 ([145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f447vwt05222 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 17:57:58 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA29184; Fri, 4 May 2001 09:57:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri May 04 09:57:27 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 <01K35U9FER940067FQ@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 04 May 2001 09:57:15 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 04 May 2001 09:56:27 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 09:57:14 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Bid out of turn To: "'John (MadDog) Probst'" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B84A@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 withdrew this answer very promptly when I realised that > >> dealer was the > >> player who called second. I had in fact completely > misunderstood the > >> problem. It > becomes more > >> interesting when, with North dealer, East makes an OBOOT and > >> South makes > >> an IB. Now we're not in L28B territory at all. > > > >ton: > > > > > >Thanks for this very constructive approach. > >But don't ask for more interesting problems, it is a mess > already and we > >don't survive those. > > > > > thank you Ton, as you appreciate I work very hard at being a > "player's > TD" and to do it this way I have to be very sure of rulings, otherwise > players get to think I make it up. Happily that doesn't happen, but > every now and then I drop a large brick. This was one of those cases. > > The question *is* interesting, and I can see entirely what causes the > problem, indeed you spelt it out and not everyone has grasped > the point. > If you open OOT in 4th, the Law works very differently from a > 2nd or 3rd > opening OOT. I actually think that's ok, because bridge is non- > symmetric, so dealer probably should/can have different > rights from 2nd, > 2nd from 3rd etc. Don't you think? cheers john Yes, if 2nd hand (LHO)opens and dealer then calls I don't need to ask anything and apply 28B If 3rd hand (partner) opens and dealer then calls the problem seems rather complicated and if I remember well BLML tried to find the right stept to solve this. Only if RHO opens and dealer then calls we have to find out what his intention was. For those who still think that there is no option here and we only can apply 28B I have the following example: south dealer and east opens OOT with 3S after which south calls 'double'. Applying 28B now means that the 3S-bid is taken away and we have to apply L36: inadmissible double. Or does 28B now tells us to continue this auction starting with a double (..the auction proceeds as though ...)? In a private answer I just told Roger Prewick to send a TD doing so home when this would happen in my TD-staff. And if there is an opening call and LHO not being dealer 'follows' the opening call OOT is accepted and the auction continues (not that complicated at all). 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 May 4 18:53:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f448rEY10937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 18:53:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f448qct10921 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 18:52:42 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id CCEFC2A519B; Fri, 4 May 2001 10:51:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 8443E2A5157 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 10:51:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 3522 invoked from network); 4 May 2001 08:51:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 4 May 2001 08:51:03 -0000 Message-ID: <3AF26D52.6030409@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:50:26 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] L24, L17E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 38ceacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi gang, South is declarer. West haven't yet made his opening lead. North and South show their hands to each other. West demands that both opponents put their cards face up on the table. 1) L24 says that +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a player's action one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction closes; +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 2) L17E says that +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 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 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ And are u gonna do about it? Yeah, "we can't let that happen" but what do the Laws say? Is the differece between "auction" and "auction period" suffcient to refuse West's demand? The defition of the "auction" in the Laws isn't very helpful, at least to me. Or do we simply say "Shut up and make your opening lead, you bloody BL". This seems a little bit unsatisfactory to me... Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -----------R--E--K--L--A--M--A----------- Szukasz pracy? Chcesz znalezc pracownika? Sprobuj na http://praca.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 4 19:59:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f449xHj26025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 19:59:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f449xAt25986 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 19:59:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.49.111] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14vcMF-0000J8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 04 May 2001 10:58:43 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c0d480$ae5e6c60$6f317ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B84A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 10:57:05 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: [JP] > > The question *is* interesting, and I can see entirely what causes the > > problem, indeed you spelt it out and not everyone has grasped > > the point. > > If you open OOT in 4th, the Law works very differently from a > > 2nd or 3rd > > opening OOT. I actually think that's ok, because bridge is non- > > symmetric, so dealer probably should/can have different > > rights from 2nd, > > 2nd from 3rd etc. Don't you think? It's not really a question of symmetry. If second hand opens, and then third hand calls, there is no real doubt that third hand has "elected" to do this, rather than done it inadvertently. Hence, we can apply L29. But if fourth hand calls and dealer calls, there does arise the question of whether dealer has done so in acceptance of RHO's call, or in ignorance of it, and we may need to apply L28. > Yes, if 2nd hand (LHO)opens and dealer then calls I don't need to ask > anything and apply 28B > If 3rd hand (partner) opens and dealer then calls the problem seems rather > complicated and if I remember well BLML tried to find the right stept to > solve this. I am not sure that I recall this discussion. L28 only applies to a player who calls after a call out of turn by an opponent; if a player whose turn it is calls after a call out of turn by his partner, I don't see why the call out of turn should not be treated under L31B (dealer is obliged to pass throughout, and the information from dealer's call is UI to his partner). What is not quite clear to me is what happens here: Dealer South West North East South 1S 1H OK, I accept 1S - 3D. The auction is allowed to continue, but what is the status of the information arising from South's 1H? > Only if RHO opens and dealer then calls we have to find out what his > intention was. For those who still think that there is no option here and we > only can apply 28B I have the following example: > south dealer and east opens OOT with 3S after which south calls 'double'. If a player doubles something, there is no possibility that he has done so in ignorance of what it was; he can be deemed to have elected to call, and L29 is the one to apply. By the same token, if East opens 3S at South's turn and South puts 1H on the table, there is no (or a very tiny) possibility that he has done so because he has not seen the call out of turn; he has not elected to accept it and then make an insufficient bid over it, so L28B is the one to apply. 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 May 4 20:22:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44AMkp04371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 20:22:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f44AMat04322 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 20:22:38 +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 14vcjG-000NAN-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 May 2001 10:22:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 02:32:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Uncertain explanation 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 >From a club game last night: >Dealer N, NSV > > K Q 7 5 2 > A K 6 > 8 > A K 10 3 > > J 10 6 3 9 > 5 4 2 J 9 8 7 > J 5 3 2 A K Q 10 4 > J 6 9 4 2 > > A 8 4 > Q 10 3 > 9 7 6 > Q 8 7 5 > >N: 2N. 19-20 bal (may contain singleton and/or 5 card suit) >E: 3D. Alerted and explained by W as: "We play ASTRO over 1N and I >*think* we've agreed to play it over 2N as well in which case it shows 5-4 >in spades and another suit BUT I'm really not sure". >S (after some further thought): Dble I appreciate that this is not an answer to the question, but we should try to publicise as far as we can the importance of calling the TD in possible MI cases at the earliest possible opportunity. In this case, if South had called the TD before he had called, and explained his difficulty, the TD would have sent West away from the table, and asked East if he knew what he E/W agreement was. If East said he knew, then he would have invited East to tell South. Note that the TD must not bully East into telling them what he thought if there is no agreement. >I'm sorry, I should have added under gleaned by TD: > >East denied any such agreement over 2N, and the EW convention card showed >ASTRO over 1N, but no reference to any defence to 2N. And we know that in this case, East would have told N/S that they did not play Astro, and there would have been no further MI difficulty. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 4 20:22:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44AMoh04391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 20:22:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f44AMft04348 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 20:22:41 +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 14vcjL-000NAL-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 May 2001 10:22:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 02:40:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B835@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3AEFCC09.E54895D1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes >From: Herman De Wael >| In my experience, what happens at the table is that the TD >| arrives, asks "how can I help you", and the player will say >| "I didn't notice the 1Di and opened 1He". No mind reading >| required. >On what basis is the player's partner entitled to a communication not >by bid or play? In this case, to the 'fact' that he did not realize >the presence of the opening bid [OOT] and that 1H was intended as an >opening bid as opposed to an overcall. > >It is my view that communicating other than by bids and plays is not >bridge, and demanding or even encouraging players to do so is >deleterious to the pastime. Do you *really* think a TD asking "How can I help you?" is deleterious to the game of bridge? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 4 20:34:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44AYRb08439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 20:34:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f44AYKt08401 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 20:34:21 +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 14vcud-000Pzg-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 May 2001 10:34:16 +0000 Message-ID: <6jRAoCAJQo86Ew1n@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 11:27:21 +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> <3AEFE581.AFAC456F@link.net> <006601c0d460$08fe3400$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006601c0d460$08fe3400$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" > >Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 6:19 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure > > >> S.S writes >> >If alerts are a matter of regulations, and there was failure to >conform to >> >these regulations. >> >On which laws does a director base his rulings ? International or >also >> >depends where we are?! >> >> The regulations are based on the Laws, and the Laws are >international. >> There is a Law, number 21, that deals with misinformation. >Failure to >> make an alert when the regulations require it, or making an alert >when >> the regulations do not require it, is misinformation, so that >particular >> Law applies. > >Actually L21 doesn't mention non-required Alerts. Since they are a >violation of the alert regulations that are in effect, the TD can >point to L40B/C as a basis for handling them. These rarely are a >source of MI. Rarely is not never, and I see no reason to argue with a deliberately simplified but not inaccurate summary. >More likely is a mistaken explanation of the alerted call's agreed >meaning, which is clearly MI. >> >> What the Law says, paraphrased, is that when misinformation >comes to >> light, including alerting wrongly or failure to alert: >> [a] The last call or play by the non-offenders may be changed > >(but only if it is likely that the call or play was made as a result >of the MI.) Paraphrasing ought not to omit important elements of the >text being rephrased. Mine was a deliberate simplification. Thanks for the obfuscation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 4 21:56:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44Btxj07200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 21:55:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f44Btpt07162 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 21:55:52 +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 14veBX-0009ML-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 May 2001 11:55:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 12:49:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B84A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B84A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B84A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes snip > >Yes, if 2nd hand (LHO)opens and dealer then calls I don't need to ask >anything and apply 28B >If 3rd hand (partner) opens and dealer then calls the problem seems rather >complicated and if I remember well BLML tried to find the right stept to >solve this. this was another one of mine from the Acol BC where third opened '1 diamond', say, and 1st opened '1 club' :)) We decided that 3rd seat's call was cancelled and was UI to 1st seat as I recall. >Only if RHO opens and dealer then calls we have to find out what his >intention was. For those who still think that there is no option here and we >only can apply 28B I have the following example: >south dealer and east opens OOT with 3S after which south calls 'double'. >Applying 28B now means that the 3S-bid is taken away and we have to apply >L36: inadmissible double. Or does 28B now tells us to continue this auction >starting with a double (..the auction proceeds as though ...)? >In a private answer I just told Roger Prewick to send a TD doing so home >when this would happen in my TD-staff. > >And if there is an opening call and LHO not being dealer 'follows' the >opening call OOT is accepted and the auction continues (not that complicated >at all). > >ton > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 4 22:06:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44C5og10688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 22:05:50 +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-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 f44C5ft10638 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 22:05:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-41.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.41]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f44C5ac06760 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 14:05:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AF2655A.991B9341@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:16:26 +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] Irrational claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Last night, I played in a 4S contract, losing three early tricks. > > In the six card ending I claimed +620. Although the opponents held all the > high red cards, I held the three outstanding trumps, plus three *good* > clubs. > > RHO objected to my claim. I was astounded when he produced *another* > Ace of clubs, since I had irrationally assumed that that card had been > played earlier. So we mutually agreed to modify my claim to 4S -100. > Perfectly normal - I guess that this is the answer to the very pertinent question. Opponents don't expect more than one trick, so perhaps we should let them have no more. > After we started play on the next board, I realised that my RHO's > acquiescence in my revised claim might also have been irrational. So I > therefore summoned the TD against my own interests, asking if he could > further reduce my score to -300. > > I pointed out to the TD that since I irrationally thought that all my cards > were > high, I might randomly play all my trumps on tricks 8 to 10 before touching > clubs, allowing RHO to win the Ace of clubs plus two red-suit tricks. > That is true, so we only have to decide whether or not it is rational to play trumps before another suit. > The TD ruled that cashing all my trumps first would have been irrational, > letting me retain a mere -100 on the board. > > Was the TD's ruling irrational? > certainly not. Was it right ? I'm not sure. > Would it have been irrational for me to have appealed? > Yes, I would have kept your money. But suppose your opponents appeal ! > Best wishes > > Richard > I guess we really need some guidelines as to what would be rational and irrational play in such situations. We already know that it is rational to play suits that one "knows" to be high in any order. I do not believe it is equally rational to do so when one of the suits is trumps. I would find cashing one top trump to see if you've missed any a rational line (as would be not cashing the same !). But playing more than one trump when other suits have to be cashed is not rational, IMHO. But maybe others disagree, in which case Richard's "ruling" of -300 is the correct one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 4 22:06:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44C5mM10675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 22:05:48 +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 f44C5ct10623 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 22:05:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-41.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.41]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f44C5Wc06681 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 14:05:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AF263A6.5ACB634A@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:09:10 +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] New Alert Procedure References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <001e01c0d18f$71474ac0$ce247bd5@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > I am at the moment trying to find out the Egyptian alerting > regulations for you. > Mmm, David, I think the best place to ask for Egyptian regulations would be the only Egyptian member of blml - which is, Sandra ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 4 22:37:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44CbJa13230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 22:37:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f44CbCt13226 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 22:37:13 +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 f44Cb6s72693 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 08:37:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010504083017.00b5a480@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, 04 May 2001 08:38:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Irrational claim In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:02 PM 5/3/01, richard.hills wrote: >Last night, I played in a 4S contract, losing three early tricks. > >In the six card ending I claimed +620. Although the opponents held >all the >high red cards, I held the three outstanding trumps, plus three *good* >clubs. > >RHO objected to my claim. I was astounded when he produced *another* >Ace of clubs, since I had irrationally assumed that that card had been >played earlier. So we mutually agreed to modify my claim to 4S -100. > >After we started play on the next board, I realised that my RHO's >acquiescence in my revised claim might also have been irrational. So I >therefore summoned the TD against my own interests, asking if he could >further reduce my score to -300. > >I pointed out to the TD that since I irrationally thought that all my >cards >were >high, I might randomly play all my trumps on tricks 8 to 10 before >touching >clubs, allowing RHO to win the Ace of clubs plus two red-suit tricks. > >The TD ruled that cashing all my trumps first would have been irrational, >letting me retain a mere -100 on the board. > >Was the TD's ruling irrational? It was incorrect, certainly, but it's not hard to see where the TD went wrong. Had the opponent held not another CA, but rather another S2, you would be required to lose a trick to it by L70C. IOW, TFLB would require the "imaginary line of play" in which you play trumps only after playing all your side cards. There is no analogous law which specifically addresses the case of a missing plain high card. An inexperienced TD could well conclude from this, erroneously, that the law deems it "normal" to play side cards before playing trumps. >Would it have been irrational for me to have appealed? Not irrational, but probably ill-advised. It would certainly have made you no friends among the AC members who lost their precious bar or sleep time hearing the case. 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 May 4 22:56:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44CuKP13256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 22:56:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f44CuEt13252 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 22:56:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f44Cu5h18730 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 May 2001 13:56:05 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 13:56 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] L24, L17E 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: <3AF26D52.6030409@interia.pl> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > South is declarer. West haven't yet made his opening lead. North and > South show their hands to each other. West demands that both opponents > put their cards face up on the table. Uphold L24 as written - I like it. NS shouldn't swop hands at all (although I sometimes don't mind if they ask permission first). This will certainly teach them the error of their ways! I recall a case where my opponents bid a confident vulnerable 6S, swapped hands, and expressed mutual satisfaction only to find that my partner had yet to call. He missed our cheapest sacrifice but the amusement value of declaring 7S non-vul, undoubled -12 was too much for him to resist. 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 May 5 01:25:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44FOi929029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 May 2001 01:24:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f44FOct29025 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 01:24:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13899; Fri, 4 May 2001 08:24:32 -0700 Message-Id: <200105041524.IAA13899@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L24, L17E In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 04 May 2001 10:50:26 +0200." <3AF26D52.6030409@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 08:24:32 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hi gang, > > South is declarer. West haven't yet made his opening lead. North and > South show their > hands to each other. West demands that both opponents put their cards > face up on the table. > > 1) L24 says that > > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a > player's action one or more > cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by > his partner, the Director > shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until > the auction closes; > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > 2) L17E says that > > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > 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 > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > And are u gonna do about it? Yeah, "we can't let that happen" but > what do the Laws say? > Is the differece between "auction" and "auction period" suffcient to > refuse West's demand? > The defition of the "auction" in the Laws isn't very helpful, at least > to me. Or do we simply > say "Shut up and make your opening lead, you bloody BL". This seems a > little bit unsatisfactory > to me... One definition of "auction" in the Laws is "The process of determining the contract by means of successive calls". It can certainly be argued that, after a call has been followed by three successive passes, the contract has still *not* been determined, because there is still a possibility, at this point, that someone can call the TD about misinformation or some other irregularity, and that the remedy will be to allow a player to change one of those final passes into another call. Thus, when the term "auction" is used as a time period (as in L24: "during the auction"), I think it makes sense to treat it as meaning the same as "auction period", and to treat "the auction closes" as having the same meaning as "the end of the auction period." -- 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 May 5 01:35:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44FZS929042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 May 2001 01:35:28 +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 f44FZLt29038 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 01:35:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-19.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.19]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f44FZFn15611 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 17:35:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AF2C792.CF378E9A@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 17:15:30 +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] Irrational claim References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010504083017.00b5a480@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: > > > > >Was the TD's ruling irrational? > > It was incorrect, certainly, but it's not hard to see where the TD went > wrong. Had the opponent held not another CA, but rather another S2, > you would be required to lose a trick to it by L70C. IOW, TFLB would > require the "imaginary line of play" in which you play trumps only > after playing all your side cards. There is no analogous law which > specifically addresses the case of a missing plain high card. An > inexperienced TD could well conclude from this, erroneously, that the > law deems it "normal" to play side cards before playing trumps. > The cases are not at all similar, Eric. If one is of the opinion that both the heart and the spade suit are high, it is normal to play all hearts first, and then all spades. It is also normal to do the reverse. If one is of the opinion that the hearts are high and no trumps are out, it is normal to play hearts first. It is also normal to play one round of trumps, and only then cash the hearts. But it is (IMO, and certainly not settled) not normal to cash all trumps and then play the other suits. It is just not what a beginner would do. I am not making a definitive judgment here, understand me right, and I could live with a consensus that goes the other way, but I just don't believe that Eric has produced a convincing argument for his case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 5 02:48:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44GlvK29093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 May 2001 02:47:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe41.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f44Glot29089 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 02:47:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 May 2001 09:47:41 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.161] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B835@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><3AEFCC09.E54895D1@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 11:42:58 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2001 16:47:41.0978 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF92AFA0:01C0D4B9] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn | Roger Pewick writes | >From: Herman De Wael | | >| In my experience, what happens at the table is that the TD | >| arrives, asks "how can I help you", and the player will say | >| "I didn't notice the 1Di and opened 1He". No mind reading | >| required. | | >On what basis is the player's partner entitled to a communication not | >by bid or play? In this case, to the 'fact' that he did not realize | >the presence of the opening bid [OOT] and that 1H was intended as an | >opening bid as opposed to an overcall. | > | >It is my view that communicating other than by bids and plays is not | >bridge, and demanding or even encouraging players to do so is | >deleterious to the pastime. | | Do you *really* think a TD asking "How can I help you?" is deleterious | to the game of bridge? I think that if players have learned that revealing one's motivation/thinking in response to such a question is appropriate then there is a problem. And if adjudicators think it is appropriate there is a bad problem. Am I wrong to so think? roger pewick | David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 5 03:17:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44HHDC29147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 May 2001 03:17:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.link.net (mail.link.net [213.131.64.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f44HH6t29143 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 03:17:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from link.net ([65.199.128.139]) by mail.link.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Fri, 4 May 2001 20:17:01 +0200 Message-ID: <3AF2E4EE.34CBF57D@link.net> Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 20:20:46 +0300 From: "S.S" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <001e01c0d18f$71474ac0$ce247bd5@pacific> <3AF263A6.5ACB634A@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Maybe Herman, you could answer my question: Why does a same law rule over different types of regulations. I don't see how this is logical. 1. Law says if mistake, then...n* possibilities.. But if mistake or not in the first place, this is related to where you find yourself playing the game. In spot A, it is breaking regulations but in spot B it is not, yet the same law is used to rule in both spots A and B. I am sure that there are many things related to each individual event where one same law can not rule in spot A where X is considered a break in regulations and spot B where X is something ordinary or normal. A ruling takes law in consideration, regulations, but also events in themselves. Each board, call or play is an individual event in itself. So if I am playing in a tourney in Alexandria and get penalized for not alerting a call and the month after I am playing in Amsterdam and get penalized for alerting the same call. And in both events the director penalizes me using the same law. This leaves me wondering. Sandra Herman De Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > I am at the moment trying to find out the Egyptian alerting > > regulations for you. > > > > Mmm, David, > > I think the best place to ask for Egyptian regulations would > be the only Egyptian member of blml - which is, Sandra ! > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 5 07:55:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44Lsbh07240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 May 2001 07:54:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f44LsPt07168 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 07:54:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from eitan (gcon1-p199.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.170.199]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA28187 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 00:54:16 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010505005058.008bf100@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@mail.netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 00:50:58 +0300 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: <3AF2E4EE.34CBF57D@link.net> References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <001e01c0d18f$71474ac0$ce247bd5@pacific> <3AF263A6.5ACB634A@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The law says you can't speed, and that traveling at x kph over the speed limit will result in a punishment. There are regulations which define the speed limit for a particular road or location or type of area, or regulations that define locations for the purpose of this law (such as built-up areas). Driving 70 kph in one location may result in a fine whereas driving 100kph in another might not be punishable (by the same law that punishes the 70 kph driver.) At 20:20 04/05/2001 +0300, Sandra wrote: >Maybe Herman, you could answer my question: >Why does a same law rule over different types of regulations. I don't see >how this is logical. >1. Law says if mistake, then...n* possibilities.. > >But if mistake or not in the first place, this is related to where you find >yourself playing the game. >In spot A, it is breaking regulations but in spot B it is not, yet the same >law is used to rule in both spots A and B. I am sure that there are many >things related to each individual event where one same law can not rule in >spot A where X is considered a break in regulations and spot B where X is >something ordinary or normal. >A ruling takes law in consideration, regulations, but also events in >themselves. Each board, call or play is an individual event in itself. >So if I am playing in a tourney in Alexandria and get penalized for not >alerting a call and the month after I am playing in Amsterdam and get >penalized for alerting the same call. And according to some regulations you may get fines in location A for driving more than 70 KPH and in location B (under the same set of laws) for driving slower than 70 KPH. >And in both events the director penalizes me using the same law. >This leaves me wondering. > > >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 Sat May 5 08:15:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44MFXA14875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 May 2001 08:15:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.link.net (mail.link.net [213.131.64.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f44MFOt14821 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 08:15:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from link.net ([65.199.128.15]) by mail.link.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Sat, 5 May 2001 01:15:18 +0200 Message-ID: <3AF32AD7.66C88D1A@link.net> Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 01:19:03 +0300 From: "S.S" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Reppert , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <001e01c0d18f$71474ac0$ce247bd5@pacific> <3AF263A6.5ACB634A@village.uunet.be> <3AF2E4EE.34CBF57D@link.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Ed Adjusting the score for me is a penalty. I can be placed 3rd instead of first. Maybe we are using different terms. But I think you understand what I mean. A redress of damage if this damage is not intentional at the end damages me. No matter how you use the words or how you phrase them. Because, I become the "non-offending" side when it to comes to such "diversity" that defines "proper procedure", and this diversity on it's turn becomes nothing but "irregularity". I don't see why we wouldn't have standard alerting regulations, updated when needed, but unified. Regulations that depend primarily on the game and not on the place where the game is played. So if we find ourselves on the moon or on the internet, the game stands, still. It doesn't have to lose any of it's consistency. As an entity by itself regardless of organizations bridge should offer to it's players and these players have all the right to a uniform and steady pattern. Isn't it awkward to ask a question concerning a game and then get the answer "depends were you live" and this seems to be the only answer you get ? Sandra Ed Reppert wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >Maybe Herman, you could answer my question: > >Why does a same law rule over different types of regulations. I don't see > >how this is logical. > >1. Law says if mistake, then...n* possibilities.. > > > >But if mistake or not in the first place, this is related to where you find > >yourself playing the game. > >In spot A, it is breaking regulations but in spot B it is not, yet the same > >law is used to rule in both spots A and B. I am sure that there are many > >things related to each individual event where one same law can not rule in > >spot A where X is considered a break in regulations and spot B where X is > >something ordinary or normal. > >A ruling takes law in consideration, regulations, but also events in > >themselves. Each board, call or play is an individual event in itself. > >So if I am playing in a tourney in Alexandria and get penalized for not > >alerting a call and the month after I am playing in Amsterdam and get > >penalized for alerting the same call. > >And in both events the director penalizes me using the same law. > >This leaves me wondering. > > Actually, you don't get penalized in either case. What happens is > that the TD determines whether there has been a departure from proper > procedure (an "irregularity"), and if so, he may adjust the score in > order to give redress for any damage your departure from proper > procedure has caused to the non-offending side, your opponents. > Proper procedure is defined by the laws *and regulations* in force. > The relevant law is Law 40. 40B says > > >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. > > and 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. > > Note the reference to "regulations of the sponsoring organization" in > 40B. Also, from the Scope of the Laws: > > >The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for > >irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. > > There is nothing in the laws which precludes different Sponsoring > Organizations from having different alerting regulations, and many > do. Yes, it imposes a burden on players to ensure they are aware of > any differences, if they play under different SOs. As Walter Cronkite > used to say, "that's the way it is." :-) > > 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/AwUBOvMPh72UW3au93vOEQKSfgCgtMpu35NEJ7hMUJPgmPkyT0LFzDEAnR22 > HH76bnKIsoSvu8VzsjYHX6AT > =oYgb > -----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 May 5 08:45:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f44MisM17755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 May 2001 08:44:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f44Milt17751 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 08:44:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-107.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.107]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id AF537F81F7 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 23:44:36 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Flying in the face ...? Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:41:29 +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 Roger Pewick started the 'claiming out of turn' string (Thu 19 Apr 01) with this hand: > 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.' There was almost universal agreement that the ruling should be four tricks to EW, based on EW accepting the LOOT and East being deemed to find the DA unblock. John (Mad Dog) Probst however continued (Fri 27 Apr 01) with: >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 argued that I would still rule four tricks to EW since "the claim had not broken down but merely contained an irregularity", to which John replied:. >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. This view is amplified by GE (Mon 30 Apr 01): >The question is what is the Director to do when there >is an objection to a claim, there is an irregularity embodied >in the statement of clarification, Law 70 gives him no >powers to apply penalties that would apply in play, >and any conceptual play that he substitutes must be >'normal' (an illegal play not being 'normal'). > It may be that it would have helped everyone if the >answer had been given expressly in the law, but EK >held the view that if there is doubt the legislators' >intentions must be honoured in the interpretation, ... Now that's as may be, but my problem here is that I see little room for *doubt* in the wording of L70. It charges the TD with coming up with an equitable result. Allowing in that adjudication for the effect of an announced irregularity is not the same as 'applying a penalty' and it seems to me that *not* to do so would be inequitable and therefore unlawful. Many of our club players are both knowledgable and capable enough of giving the TD a hard time. If I were faced with the above situation (with the LOOT clearly part of the claim) and I followed 'the official line' and awarded EW one trick , I can imagine the following exchange taking place: NOS: You've applied L70? Me: Yes. NOS: L70 requires you to "adjudicate the result of the board as equitably as possible ..."? Me: Yes. NOS: If declarer had led S2 OOT *before* claiming we would have made four tricks? Me: Assuming East finds the unblock, yes. NOS: Is it equitable then that we should be adjudicated as making only one trick? Me: No, but that is what is required by the lawmakers. NOS: So you're flying in the face of L70 ... ? 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 May 5 12:17:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f452H7A04032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 May 2001 12:17:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f452Gvt04028 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 12:16:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt8pa.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.163.42]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA10558 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 22:16:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00e401c0d509$ade40e00$50a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <3AEFE581.AFAC456F@link.net> <006601c0d460$08fe3400$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <6jRAoCAJQo86Ew1n@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 21:18:28 -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 DWS wrote > Marvin L. French writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > > > >> There is a Law, number 21, that deals with misinformation. > >Failure to > >> make an alert when the regulations require it, or making an alert > >when > >> the regulations do not require it, is misinformation, so that > >particular > >> Law applies. > > > >Actually L21 doesn't mention non-required Alerts. Since they are a > >violation of the alert regulations that are in effect, the TD can > >point to L40B/C as a basis for handling them. These rarely are a > >source of MI. > > Rarely is not never, and I see no reason to argue with a deliberately > simplified but not inaccurate summary. > Does anyone have an example of an alert that was not required (but with correct explanation and no evidence of intent to help partner) causing any penalty? In ACBL land, I would guess that illegal A+/A- rulings outnumber penalties for unneeded alerts by about 1000 to 1. "When in doubt, alert" is our motto over here. 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 Sat May 5 17:35:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f457Xtx24676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 May 2001 17:33:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f457Xlt24669 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 17:33:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-39-79.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.39.79]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f457XYH22131 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 08:33:35 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000b01c0d535$ac2d3240$4f277bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Flying in the face ...? Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 08:32:36 +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 5.00.2615.200 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: Friday, May 04, 2001 11:41 PM Subject: [BLML] Flying in the face ...? > > Now that's as may be, but my problem here is > that I see little room for *doubt* in the wording > of L70. It charges the TD with coming up with > an equitable result. Allowing in that adjudication > for the effect of an announced irregularity is not > the same as 'applying a penalty' and it seems > to me that *not* to do so would be inequitable > and therefore unlawful. Many of our club players > are both knowledgable and capable enough of > giving the TD a hard time. If I were faced with > the above situation (with the LOOT clearly part > of the claim) and I followed 'the official line' and > awarded EW one trick , I can imagine > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > +=+ Dear Charles, Chas or Brambledown, I am confident there are a number of points on which we can agree. One is that each of us is entitled to his own opinion and that it is of no consequence simply to tread endlessly the circle of debate. Another would perhaps be that I am right to include the question amongst items for decision by the WBFLC in Bali. However we may interpret the Law today, it is evidently desirable to have a fresh interpretation and direction for tomorrow. I might have more difficulty in persuading you that a Director is given no authority to decide for players how they would exercise their options. But finally I think we could settle on the clear requirement that a TD must apply the law and not seek to invent or redefine it for himself. Thus, whilst Arcady may be a little way off, we can all look forward to a single agreed position to be reached in the aftermath of Bali. With kind regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 5 18:54:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f458sAV07100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 May 2001 18:54:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.link.net (mail.link.net [213.131.64.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f458s2t07093 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 18:54:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from link.net ([65.199.128.29]) by mail.link.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Sat, 5 May 2001 11:53:50 +0200 Message-ID: <3AF3C082.BF915111@link.net> Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:57:38 +0300 From: "S.S" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eitan Levy , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <001e01c0d18f$71474ac0$ce247bd5@pacific> <3AF263A6.5ACB634A@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.20010505005058.008bf100@mail.netvision.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: > The law says you can't speed, and that traveling at x kph over the speed > limit will result in a punishment. > There are regulations which define the speed limit for a particular road or > location or type of area, or regulations that define locations for the > purpose of this law (such as built-up areas). Driving 70 kph in one > location may result in a fine whereas driving 100kph in another might not > be punishable (by the same law that punishes the 70 kph driver.) There are roads where driving 70 results in a punishment and other roads where driving 100 does not result in any punishment. Act X in spot A is not viewed in the same manner as it is in spot B. It is isn't a matter of how fast you drive it is a matter of if speeding in itself requires a fine or not. In some places speeding is considered 'an offence' while in others it is 'normal', 'permitted' or even 'required'. This is the diversity we are facing. We turn 360 degrees, from one extreme to the other. And then, inside this big turn we carry numerous possibilities, one of which you express here. Unless we could say that each zone or organization has and adapts it's own system... Yet again we find countries following others but still work on their alert regulations. What's the idea ? Identity crisis ? Sandra > > > At 20:20 04/05/2001 +0300, Sandra wrote: > >Maybe Herman, you could answer my question: > >Why does a same law rule over different types of regulations. I don't see > >how this is logical. > >1. Law says if mistake, then...n* possibilities.. > > > >But if mistake or not in the first place, this is related to where you find > >yourself playing the game. > >In spot A, it is breaking regulations but in spot B it is not, yet the same > >law is used to rule in both spots A and B. I am sure that there are many > >things related to each individual event where one same law can not rule in > >spot A where X is considered a break in regulations and spot B where X is > >something ordinary or normal. > >A ruling takes law in consideration, regulations, but also events in > >themselves. Each board, call or play is an individual event in itself. > >So if I am playing in a tourney in Alexandria and get penalized for not > >alerting a call and the month after I am playing in Amsterdam and get > >penalized for alerting the same call. > > And according to some regulations you may get fines in location A for > driving more than 70 KPH and in location B (under the same set of laws) for > driving slower than 70 KPH. > > >And in both events the director penalizes me using the same law. > >This leaves me wondering. > > > > > >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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 6 04:43:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f45Igpr08518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 May 2001 04:42:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com (juicer34.bigpond.com [139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f45Igkt08514 for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 04:42:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.57]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GCVLJ000.5D8 for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 04:47:24 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-88.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.88]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Disorderly-MailRouter V2.9c 3/690563); 06 May 2001 04:42:11 Message-ID: <026001c0d592$d1ca2000$58d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 04:40:12 +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: >I think the best place to ask for Egyptian regulations would >be the only Egyptian member of blml - which is, Sandra ! I would have thought the official Egyptian website would be best. It has heaps of the regulations used for the 1st African Championships earlier this year, but nothing about Alerting Regulations, as far as I can see. 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 Sun May 6 04:51:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f45Ior908569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 May 2001 04:50:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f45Iomt08563 for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 04:50:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.57]) by mailin3.email.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GCVLX800.1PT for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 04:55:56 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-88.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.88]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Provisional-MailRouter V2.9c 3/691426); 06 May 2001 04:50:43 Message-ID: <026d01c0d594$02832880$58d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Irrational claim Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 04:48:43 +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 it is (IMO, and certainly not settled) not normal to >cash all trumps and then play the other suits. > >It is just not what a beginner would do. "for the class of player involved" (Footnote to Law 69B) ... Herman, Richard Hills, whom I realise you do not know personally, is anything but a beginner. An expert card player, deep thinker and exceeedingly ethical player (in fact, the rare kind of player whose bridge record might have been more glittering had he been less ethical, sad but true to say), but no resemblance whatsoever to a beginner. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 7 20:28:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f47AOkb03798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 May 2001 20:24:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f47AOct03794 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 20:24:39 +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 MAA13584; Mon, 7 May 2001 12:20:48 +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 MAA06572; Mon, 7 May 2001 12:23:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010507122752.00816890@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 12:27:52 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Irrational claim In-Reply-To: <3AF2C792.CF378E9A@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010504083017.00b5a480@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 17:15 4/05/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >If one is of the opinion that the hearts are high and no >trumps are out, it is normal to play hearts first. >It is also normal to play one round of trumps, and only then >cash the hearts. > >But it is (IMO, and certainly not settled) not normal to >cash all trumps and then play the other suits. > >It is just not what a beginner would do. AG : it is also not what a 'normal' and careful player would do. After all, if he badly miscounted the trumps, playing the plain suit tricks first would ensure he doesn't lose control of the hand. I'm just wondering, shall we allow somebody who has just proven (by his wrong claim) he was out of touch to play according to a careful line of play ? What the heck, I'll just make one more ad for my way of claiming : in this case, put on the table, in that order and in quick succession, KC, QC, JC, and trumps in any order. This will serve as a statement on the order of play, if one is needed. And in the occasional case where the claim is wrong, it cuts all ambiguity. It would surely have reduced the score to -100 (not to ruff the red return after the opponents have scored their CA is surely irrational). 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 May 7 20:48:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f47Akci03822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 May 2001 20:46:38 +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 f47AkWt03818 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 20:46:33 +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 MAA16918; Mon, 7 May 2001 12:46:13 +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 MAA21705; Mon, 7 May 2001 12:45:51 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010507124950.007d4100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 12:49:50 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L24, L17E Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:56 4/05/01 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <3AF26D52.6030409@interia.pl> >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> South is declarer. West haven't yet made his opening lead. North and >> South show their hands to each other. West demands that both opponents >> put their cards face up on the table. > >Uphold L24 as written - I like it. NS shouldn't swop hands at all >(although I sometimes don't mind if they ask permission first). This will >certainly teach them the error of their ways! I recall a case where my >opponents bid a confident vulnerable 6S, swapped hands, and expressed >mutual satisfaction only to find that my partner had yet to call. He >missed our cheapest sacrifice but the amusement value of declaring 7S >non-vul, undoubled -12 was too much for him to resist. AG : minus 12 ? He seems to have missed something. Since the opponents are now defenders, and since exposed card from defenders are penaly cards, he is allowed to name the cards played by the opponents (L51A) to each trick. Surely he can now make more than one trick ? I fully agree : that'll teach them. 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 May 7 21:55:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f47Brrx10970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 May 2001 21:53:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f47Brjt10966 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 21:53:46 +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 f47BrU581596 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 07:53:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010507074809.00b79290@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, 07 May 2001 07:55:21 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Irrational claim In-Reply-To: <3AF2C792.CF378E9A@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010504083017.00b5a480@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 11:15 AM 5/4/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >Was the TD's ruling irrational? > > > > It was incorrect, certainly, but it's not hard to see where the TD went > > wrong. Had the opponent held not another CA, but rather another S2, > > you would be required to lose a trick to it by L70C. IOW, TFLB would > > require the "imaginary line of play" in which you play trumps only > > after playing all your side cards. There is no analogous law which > > specifically addresses the case of a missing plain high card. An > > inexperienced TD could well conclude from this, erroneously, that the > > law deems it "normal" to play side cards before playing trumps. > >The cases are not at all similar, Eric. > >If one is of the opinion that both the heart and the spade >suit are high, it is normal to play all hearts first, and >then all spades. >It is also normal to do the reverse. > >If one is of the opinion that the hearts are high and no >trumps are out, it is normal to play hearts first. >It is also normal to play one round of trumps, and only then >cash the hearts. > >But it is (IMO, and certainly not settled) not normal to >cash all trumps and then play the other suits. > >It is just not what a beginner would do. > >I am not making a definitive judgment here, understand me >right, and I could live with a consensus that goes the other >way, but I just don't believe that Eric has produced a >convincing argument for his case. FTR, I have not produced any argument on the case at all; I was merely suggesting why this TD might have gotten the ruling wrong. But I disagree with Herman that it is any less "normal" to cash all the trumps followed by all the side suit cards than the reverse when one believes that the opponents hold no more cards in either suit. He may well be right that it's "not what a beginner would do", but the definition of "'normal'" is far more encompassing than merely what a beginner would be presumed to do, even for a beginner. 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 May 7 22:58:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f47CuoE01477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 May 2001 22:56:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f47Cuht01430 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 22:56:43 +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 f47CuWr10714 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 08:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010507084107.00b78bf0@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, 07 May 2001 08:58:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: <00e401c0d509$ade40e00$50a0aec7@ix.netcom.com> References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <3AEFE581.AFAC456F@link.net> <006601c0d460$08fe3400$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <6jRAoCAJQo86Ew1n@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:18 PM 5/4/01, Jerry wrote: >Does anyone have an example of an alert that was not required (but with >correct explanation and no evidence of intent to help partner) causing any >penalty? In ACBL land, I would guess that illegal A+/A- rulings outnumber >penalties for unneeded alerts by about 1000 to 1. "When in doubt, >alert" is >our motto over here. One can assume that there is no such thing as a penalty for a non-required alert in the ACBL. The ACBL's alert rules (with which I include official interpretations thereof) are not only intricate and complicated, but constantly being tinkered with. The vast majority of players can't possbibly know all the rules, or, even if they do at some point, follow all the changes. At least, though, the ACBL recognizes this. Their stated policy is that if you're not sure whether partner's call is alertable you should alert it. Thus a player who alerts a non-alertable call can claim to be following the published ACBL policy, for which he can hardly be penalized. Yesterday at a local sectional, my partner asked the DIC whether we should alert constructive raises of weak two-bids. His response, in effect, was that he had no idea whether this was a required alert, and therefore yes, we should alert it. That director is an NABC DIC, which makes him one of the three highest-rated directors in the ACBL; he regularly teaches the ACBL's training course for TDs. (She also asked whether we needed to alert our 1H/1S openings, which in our methods may be made on (gasp!) four-card suits, but things haven't gone quite that far yet.) 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 May 7 23:26:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f47DOhe11317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 May 2001 23:24:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f47DOat11273 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 23:24:36 +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 f47DOCR28856 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 15:24:13 +0200 (MET DST) From: "J.P.Pals" To: Subject: [BLML] What is suggested? Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 15:21:23 +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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am a bit confused by the discussion about this problem in a Dutch newsgroup: All vul, dealer East. All competent players, not experts. W N E S - - 1S x 2S 3H 3S 4H 4S ....p p ?? South holds: 5 AQ932 AJ5 A942 IMO, South's options are pass, double and 5H. Is any one of these demonstrably suggested by North's slow pass? Thanks for comments. cheers, JP -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 8 00:10:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f47E8RM27121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 00:08:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f47E8Lt27085 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 00:08:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 07:04:13 -0700 Message-ID: <001301c0d6ff$1b547be0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B831@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 07:07:44 -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: "Kooijman, A." (snip) >I would prefer more suggestions on how to improve the laws instead of persisting in telling what the law means because you (reader) want it to be so. We've already had that lecture from several others, who believe that some of us readers have hidden agendas when we don't get the same meaning from the Laws' English as they do. I would prefer that the LC concentrate its efforts on clarifying the Laws to communicate whatever meanings they have in mind, instead of persisting in telling us how to read. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA "Never ascribe to an opponent motives meaner than your own." - J. M. Barrie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 8 01:27:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f47FPtB24911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 01:25:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f47FPmt24866 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 01:25:48 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f47FPNb29211 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 May 2001 11:25:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200105071525.f47FPNb29211@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 11:25:23 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <001301c0d6ff$1b547be0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at May 07, 2001 07:07:44 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I do have to second this comment (although I'm not sure that I would be quite so pointed about it). I direct in some big and some small games and I'm often asked by some of the local club directors for input on the rulings. In many cases, the written laws are ambiguous as to the intent of the ruling. At my level, I have access to several ACBL directors who direct at the NABC's and regionals and can get input from them as to the ACBL's current take on laws and the rulings, but many of the club directors don't. When a law is ambiguous, the club directors will do their best to read the law and interpret it for their club members. But, so often, I have heard players tell me, "Well, that's not the way it was ruled the last time this happened..." or similar statements. It's bad for the players to think that there is no definite ruling on certain situations simply because the language of the written law is so ambiguous that several people reading it will have a different interpretation and will rule differently on the same situation based on how they read the law. In my case and some of the club directors around this area, it isn't "...telling you what that law means because..." *I* (reader) "...want it to be so..." it's that I interpret the oft-ambiguous language differently than you do and have to make do as best I can with my interpretation of reading the book (and I do read the book often related to rulings and still have these problems). -Ted. > From: "Marvin L. French" > Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 07:07:44 -0700 > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > (snip) > > >I would prefer more suggestions on how to improve the laws instead > of persisting in telling what the law > means because you (reader) want it to be so. > > We've already had that lecture from several others, who believe that > some of us readers have hidden agendas when we don't get the same > meaning from the Laws' English as they do. I would prefer that the > LC concentrate its efforts on clarifying the Laws to communicate > whatever meanings they have in mind, instead of persisting in > telling us how to read. > > 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 May 8 02:53:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f47Gpq601843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 02:51:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f47Gpjt01839 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 02:51:46 +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 f47GpYr27922 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 12:51:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010507120039.00b5cb50@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, 07 May 2001 12:21:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:21 AM 5/7/01, J.P.Pals wrote: >All vul, dealer East. >All competent players, not experts. > >W N E S > - - 1S x >2S 3H 3S 4H >4S ....p p ?? > >South holds: > > 5 > AQ932 > AJ5 > A942 > >IMO, South's options are pass, double and 5H. >Is any one of these demonstrably suggested by >North's slow pass? Presumably, N's hesitation suggested that he was considering either 5H or double as an alternative to passing. There are two schools of thought on questions like this. One school says that since either might have been suggested by the huddle, S must eschew both and pass (unless, of course, N-S can show that their minimum strength requirements for 3H and 4H preclude pass being an LA, which is possible on the above auction). The other argues that if N was thinking of bidding 5H, then from S's point of view 5H would be better than pass, but pass would be better then double, vice versa if N was thinking of doubling, therefore neither is demonstrably suggested over pass, and S is free to choose his call. The first school would rebut that even if 5H or double would have no higher mean expectation than pass, it has a higher variance, which could be attractive by itself (if, say, N-S know that they need a better than average score on the board, and aren't concerned about getting a possible zero rather than an average), therefore cannot be allowed to take what he knows from partner's huddle is the higher-risk strategy, and must pass. The second school would point out that if this were true, it would have to work both ways: a pair that needed to avoid a bottom but would be happy with an average would have to be required not to pass, and no such ruling has ever been made in the history of organized bridge. Right know I'm leaning towards the second view, but neither side has me entirely convinced. 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 May 8 03:26:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f47HOkx01897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 03:24:46 +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 f47HOet01893 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 03:24:41 +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 KAA29140; Mon, 7 May 2001 10:24:26 -0700 Message-Id: <200105071724.KAA29140@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 07 May 2001 12:21:31 EDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20010507120039.00b5cb50@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 10:24:25 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:21 AM 5/7/01, J.P.Pals wrote: > > >All vul, dealer East. > >All competent players, not experts. What was the form of scoring? I think it's potentially important here. > >W N E S > > - - 1S x > >2S 3H 3S 4H > >4S ....p p ?? > > > >South holds: > > > > 5 > > AQ932 > > AJ5 > > A942 > > > >IMO, South's options are pass, double and 5H. > >Is any one of these demonstrably suggested by > >North's slow pass? > > Presumably, N's hesitation suggested that he was considering either 5H > or double as an alternative to passing. There are two schools of > thought on questions like this. > > One school says that since either might have been suggested by the > huddle, S must eschew both and pass (unless, of course, N-S can show > that their minimum strength requirements for 3H and 4H preclude pass > being an LA, which is possible on the above auction). > > The other argues that if N was thinking of bidding 5H, then from S's > point of view 5H would be better than pass, but pass would be better > then double, vice versa if N was thinking of doubling, therefore > neither is demonstrably suggested over pass, and S is free to choose > his call. > > The first school would rebut that even if 5H or double would have no > higher mean expectation than pass, it has a higher variance, which > could be attractive by itself (if, say, N-S know that they need a > better than average score on the board, and aren't concerned about > getting a possible zero rather than an average), therefore cannot be > allowed to take what he knows from partner's huddle is the higher-risk > strategy, and must pass. > > The second school would point out that if this were true, it would have > to work both ways: a pair that needed to avoid a bottom but would be > happy with an average would have to be required not to pass, and no > such ruling has ever been made in the history of organized bridge. > > Right know I'm leaning towards the second view, but neither side has me > entirely convinced. I also tend to lean toward the second view in cases like this. However, in cases such as this where someone who hesitates could have been thinking of "bidding on" or "making a penalty double", it's often the case that one of those possibilities has a much higher chance than the other. My gut tells me that on this auction, it's a lot more likely that North's hesitation indicates that he was thinking about bidding on than about making a penalty double. So I lean toward thinking that 5H is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation, but doubling is not. -- 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 May 8 03:30:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f47HSxV01909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 03:28:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f47HSrt01905 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 03:28:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-133.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.133]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id C2DA636D70; Mon, 7 May 2001 19:28:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004301c0d719$6d11a100$21b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 19:08:58 +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 > >From: "Kooijman, A." > >(snip) > >>I would prefer more suggestions on how to improve the laws instead >of persisting in telling what the law >means because you (reader) want it to be so. > >We've already had that lecture from several others, who believe that >some of us readers have hidden agendas when we don't get the same >meaning from the Laws' English as they do. I would prefer that the >LC concentrate its efforts on clarifying the Laws to communicate >whatever meanings they have in mind, instead of persisting in >telling us how to read. Please explain to me what the difference between those two is: 'communicating whatever meanings they have in mind' and 'telling you how to read'. Or similar question: 'tell me how to read your message'. ton > >Marv > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 8 05:52:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f47Jogl18703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 05:50:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f47JoXt18663 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 05:50:34 +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 f47JoL517154 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 15:50:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010507154303.00b5aa80@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, 07 May 2001 15:52:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested? In-Reply-To: <200105071724.KAA29140@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 01:24 PM 5/7/01, Adam wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 09:21 AM 5/7/01, J.P.Pals wrote: > > > > >All vul, dealer East. > > >All competent players, not experts. > >What was the form of scoring? I think it's potentially important >here. > > > > >W N E S > > > - - 1S x > > >2S 3H 3S 4H > > >4S ....p p ?? > > > > > >South holds: > > > > > > 5 > > > AQ932 > > > AJ5 > > > A942 > > > > > >IMO, South's options are pass, double and 5H. > > >Is any one of these demonstrably suggested by > > >North's slow pass? > > > > Presumably, N's hesitation suggested that he was considering either 5H > > or double as an alternative to passing. There are two schools of > > thought on questions like this. > > > > One school says that since either might have been suggested by the > > huddle, S must eschew both and pass (unless, of course, N-S can show > > that their minimum strength requirements for 3H and 4H preclude pass > > being an LA, which is possible on the above auction). > > > > The other argues that if N was thinking of bidding 5H, then from S's > > point of view 5H would be better than pass, but pass would be better > > then double, vice versa if N was thinking of doubling, therefore > > neither is demonstrably suggested over pass, and S is free to choose > > his call. > > > > The first school would rebut that even if 5H or double would have no > > higher mean expectation than pass, it has a higher variance, which > > could be attractive by itself (if, say, N-S know that they need a > > better than average score on the board, and aren't concerned about > > getting a possible zero rather than an average), therefore cannot be > > allowed to take what he knows from partner's huddle is the higher-risk > > strategy, and must pass. > > > > The second school would point out that if this were true, it would > have > > to work both ways: a pair that needed to avoid a bottom but would be > > happy with an average would have to be required not to pass, and no > > such ruling has ever been made in the history of organized bridge. > > > > Right know I'm leaning towards the second view, but neither side > has me > > entirely convinced. > >I also tend to lean toward the second view in cases like this. >However, in cases such as this where someone who hesitates could have >been thinking of "bidding on" or "making a penalty double", it's often >the case that one of those possibilities has a much higher chance than >the other. My gut tells me that on this auction, it's a lot more >likely that North's hesitation indicates that he was thinking about >bidding on than about making a penalty double. So I lean toward >thinking that 5H is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation, but >doubling is not. That is a perfectly reasonable view of the actual case. It is entirely consistent with the "second school" to determine that 5H is demonstrably suggested over either pass or double by partner's huddle and therefore to reverse a successful 5H bid. But a second-school adherent who would reverse a successful 5H bid would not consider reversing a successful double in the same situation, whereas a first-schooler might well. 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 May 8 11:54:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f481s6J20750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 11:54:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from midntprod03.minfod.com (al194.minfod.com [207.227.70.194] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f481rvt20710 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 11:53:59 +1000 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 21:07:29 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: [BLML] Irrational claim Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 21:07:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >But it is (IMO, and certainly not settled) not normal to >cash all trumps and then play the other suits. > >It is just not what a beginner would do. But this is exactly what beginners do. I see it happen all the time. John S. Nichols -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 8 15:57:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f485vCJ13783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 15:57:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from deborah.paradise.net.nz (deborah.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f485v7t13779 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 15:57:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from u0m7o0 (203-96-158-196.tnt4.paradise.net.nz [203.96.158.196]) by deborah.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with SMTP id 20D821F9DF8 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 17:56:57 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <003901c0d784$165814a0$c49e60cb@u0m7o0> From: "John Rosevear" To: References: <004301c0d719$6d11a100$21b6f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 17:59:34 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From one rather new club director who just looks on here and is ocassionally confused, can I suggest a solution that is used in another law book I have been associated in the past It may be useful to use more notes to a law to explain and/or clarify the intention in cases where ambiguity is possible or develops John R ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton kooijman" To: "Marvin L. French" ; Sent: Tuesday, 8 May 2001 05:08 Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) > > > >From: "Kooijman, A." > > > >(snip) > > > >>I would prefer more suggestions on how to improve the laws instead > >of persisting in telling what the law > >means because you (reader) want it to be so. > > > >We've already had that lecture from several others, who believe that > >some of us readers have hidden agendas when we don't get the same > >meaning from the Laws' English as they do. I would prefer that the > >LC concentrate its efforts on clarifying the Laws to communicate > >whatever meanings they have in mind, instead of persisting in > >telling us how to read. > > Please explain to me what the difference between those two is: > 'communicating whatever meanings they have in mind' and > > 'telling you how to read'. Or similar question: 'tell me how to read your > message'. > > ton > > > > >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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 8 17:20:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f487K1r13930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 17:20:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f487Jot13926 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 17:19:52 +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 f487JOR11968 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 09:19:25 +0200 (MET DST) From: "J.P.Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] What is suggested? Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 09:16:32 +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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 In-Reply-To: <200105071724.KAA29140@mailhub.irvine.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 09:21 AM 5/7/01, J.P.Pals wrote: > > > > >All vul, dealer East. > > >All competent players, not experts. > > What was the form of scoring? I think it's potentially important here. It was an MP (pairs) event. JP -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 8 17:57:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f487v6l14001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 17:57:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f487uwt13997 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 17:56:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-250.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.250]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f487uin29177 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 09:56:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AF6E596.535DE182@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:12:38 +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] New Alert Procedure References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <001e01c0d18f$71474ac0$ce247bd5@pacific> <3AF263A6.5ACB634A@village.uunet.be> <3AF2E4EE.34CBF57D@link.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "S.S" wrote: > > Maybe Herman, you could answer my question: > Why does a same law rule over different types of regulations. I don't see > how this is logical. > 1. Law says if mistake, then...n* possibilities.. > Sandra, the same law applies, but application depends on the language. When I answer the question about the meaning of my 2Sp opening here in Belgium, I will say "zwakke twee". That is a perfectly correct explanation. But if I would say the same thing in Cairo, it would not be. "weak two" would probably be adequate, especially since I don't know any Arabic. The same is true about alerting. I would not alert the 2Sp opening in Belgium, and that would be a correct explanation. But I would perhaps need to alert the same bid with the same meaning, when playing in Cairo. So it is not the Law that differs, only the language. Alerting regulations are needed to define this language, but they do not need to be the same everywhere, everywhen. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 8 18:13:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f488DLv14045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 18:13:21 +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 f488DDt14039 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 18:13:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-81-140.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.81.140]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f488CsH19875 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 09:12:54 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> Subject: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 09:11:49 +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: 'Eric Landau' ; Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 3:07 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Irrational claim > >But it is (IMO, and certainly not settled) not > >normal to cash all trumps and then play the > >other suits. > > > >It is just not what a beginner would do. > > But this is exactly what beginners do. I see it > happen all the time. > > John S. Nichols > +=+ When ton asks that the thrust of discussions here be towards suggestion of what the future effects of the law should be, I think he is putting his finger on the most useful service that argument can bring to the game. So, desirably, discussions like this one should lead us to some conclusion in that vein. What we learn is that each subscriber's personal experience colours his view of what a 'beginner' may be expected to do. The relevant law requires the Director to make a subjective assessment of the individual player. I believe such subjective judgements are a legitimate activity for players, but wherever possible it seems appropriate that a Director should be called upon to base his rulings on an objective understanding of the game of duplicate bridge. There are two basic moves that I would like to see with regard to the footnote to Laws 69, 70,71. Since this footnote is a definition of 'normal' my first step would be to place it in Chapter 1 of the book. My second wish would be to rethink it. As things are this footnote discriminates between one quality of player and another: stronger players are advantaged against the weaker in the interpretation of the Law when it applies to them. The Law is biased in favour of the stronger players and there is no blindfold on the eyes of Justice. To me that is repugnant. I would wish 'normal' to be defined in relation to absolute qualities intrinsic to the game. That was the case with the footnote as it appeared in the 1975 Code: " 'Normal' includes the inferior or careless, but not the irrational. " We could perhaps enter a definition such as: " Normal: to be considered 'normal' actions must exclude anything irrational; not excluded are inferior or careless actions. " ~ 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 May 8 21:23:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48BM0322091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 21:22:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f48BLqt22087 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 21:21:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA05678; Tue, 8 May 2001 13:21:29 +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 NAA08258; Tue, 8 May 2001 13:21:09 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010508132508.0081bea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 13:25:08 +0200 To: "Grattan Endicott" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:11 8/05/01 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >We could perhaps enter a definition such as: > " Normal: to be considered 'normal' actions > must exclude anything irrational; not > excluded are inferior or careless actions. " AG : good idea. And one should add something to the effect that 'dominated' (eg heads you lose, tails you're even) actions are not per se irrational, only inferior, thus 'normal'. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 8 21:53:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48Brel22258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 21:53:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from punt1.cix.co.uk (punt1.cix.co.uk [212.35.225.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f48BrWt22254 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 21:53:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by punt1.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/CIX/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f48AHi229798 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 11:17:45 +0100 (BST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f48AD9H22988 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 May 2001 11:13:09 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 11:13 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: 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: JP Pals wrote: > I am a bit confused by the discussion about this > problem in a Dutch newsgroup: > > All vul, dealer East. > All competent players, not experts. > > W N E S > - - 1S x > 2S 3H 3S 4H > 4S ....p p ?? > > South holds: > > 5 > AQ932 > AJ5 > A942 > > IMO, South's options are pass, double and 5H. IMO pass is not an option. Opponents were willing to stop short of game but were pushed to it. South bid 4H to make on the previous round. South cannot possibly contemplate passing now. Looking at this hand I reckon North was most likely contemplating 5H (he wouldn't often consider a double on an aceless hand would he?). Since I feel 5H to be mildly suggested I think double should be allowed. However, at the table I might decide that North more likely showed a borderline almost double and require a 5H bid (or that the pause was "information free" and that the table result should stand). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 8 23:29:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48DSbR16786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 23:28:37 +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 f48DSUt16782 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 23:28:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-235.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.235]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f48DSGc24621 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 15:28:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AF7ED59.4CA05F79@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 14:58:01 +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: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@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 "Being rich, my virtue then shall be > To say there is no vice but beggary." > - Shakespeare ('King John') > + + + + > > > > > >It is just not what a beginner would do. > > > > But this is exactly what beginners do. I see it > > happen all the time. > > > > > +=+ When ton asks that the thrust of discussions > here be towards suggestion of what the future > effects of the law should be, I think he is putting > his finger on the most useful service that > argument can bring to the game. So, desirably, > discussions like this one should lead us to some > conclusion in that vein. > What we learn is that each subscriber's > personal experience colours his view of what a > 'beginner' may be expected to do. The relevant > law requires the Director to make a subjective > assessment of the individual player. I believe > such subjective judgements are a legitimate > activity for players, but wherever possible it > seems appropriate that a Director should be > called upon to base his rulings on an objective > understanding of the game of duplicate bridge. When I was writing about beginners, I meant beginners at the bridge game. Usually these players (in Belgium at least) have some grasp of the basic mechanics of the card game (usually some form of whist) and that kind of beginner plays trumps first and last. John is obviously talking of some lower form of beginner, who is still grasping the fact that a card with just one spot on it beats all the others. Surely that is not the standard by which to judge any form of bridge tournament. Now I agree that there is some sort of problem here, and I believe that through lists of this sort, and national conferences and TD meetings, some form of consensus can be reached to decide whether or not we let, in the original case, the declarer cash his trumps before playing the suit that he mistakingly thinks is high. Since I have seen no posts to the contrary, I believe there is some form of consensus here that we allow declarer to be just the one light. Grattan is proposing we take another route, and I don't agree with him: > There are two basic moves that I would like > to see with regard to the footnote to Laws 69, > 70,71. Since this footnote is a definition of > 'normal' my first step would be to place it in > Chapter 1 of the book. I do agree with this statement, and I would like to see it expanded as well. > My second wish would > be to rethink it. As things are this footnote > discriminates between one quality of player > and another: stronger players are advantaged > against the weaker in the interpretation of > the Law when it applies to them. The Law is > biased in favour of the stronger players and > there is no blindfold on the eyes of Justice. > To me that is repugnant. The law is not biased : the game is. As I see it, the Law says that we should rule as to "what would have happened if". That inherently implies that the strength of the player influences this. To say that Garozzo is a mere beginner, or that every player will play like Garozzo, that is a biased point of view (either in one direction or the other). As long as the law tries to re-establish what "would have happened", then "for the class of player involved" must be included. > I would wish 'normal' to be defined in > relation to absolute qualities intrinsic to the > game. And what standard would you set : John's beginner ? Mine ? Me ? You ? David Burn ? Garozzo ? > That was the case with the footnote > as it appeared in the 1975 Code: > " 'Normal' includes the inferior or careless, > but not the irrational. " And those words were interpreted with "for the class of player involved", even if that was added only later. > We could perhaps enter a definition such as: > " Normal: to be considered 'normal' actions > must exclude anything irrational; not > excluded are inferior or careless actions. " That is just a grammatical rewording, not a rethink. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 00:23:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48EKxo04020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 00:20:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f48EKnt03962 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 00:20:50 +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 KAA22236 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 10:28:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105081428.KAA22236@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <004301c0d719$6d11a100$21b6f1c3@kooijman> References: <004301c0d719$6d11a100$21b6f1c3@kooijman> Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 10:28:20 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 7 May 2001 at 19:08, "ton kooijman" wrote: >> >>From: "Kooijman, A." >> >>(snip) >> >>>I would prefer more suggestions on how to improve the laws instead >>of persisting in telling what the law >>means because you (reader) want it to be so. Well, BLML (much to DWS's chagrin) is a forum for discussing both how the Laws as written should be interpreted in "fall-through-the-cracks" cases *and* how the Laws could be improved (both by rewording and by reworking). I believe strongly that both are important and necessary; that neither DWS's wish that we stick to the former (or, to be more fair, wish that we not change from the former to the latter in the same thread) and your frustration that we do not stick to the latter are unhealthy opinions for BLML to accede to. Yes, there should be a way for the rank-and-file to get "how should this be interpreted". It should be easy, and those decisions that have been made should be located in a place easily accessible to all (i.e. not "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on it saying 'Beware of the Leopard'"). >> >>We've already had that lecture from several others, who believe that >>some of us readers have hidden agendas when we don't get the same >>meaning from the Laws' English as they do. I would prefer that the >>LC concentrate its efforts on clarifying the Laws to communicate >>whatever meanings they have in mind, instead of persisting in >>telling us how to read. > >Please explain to me what the difference between those two is: >'communicating whatever meanings they have in mind' and >'telling you how to read'. Or similar question: 'tell me how to read your >message'. > The difference is that, instead of putting "this is what we meant" on an "unofficial, don't take your decisions from what the people say on this" list, Marv wants you to put "this is what we meant" on official (web-)paper, with the authority of the WBFLC on it, and have it publicized, so that the mainstream TDs that make the rulings Marv and I (and TWM, and... those players who are neither - recognized authorities in their country on the Laws , and - regular players at lower-than-national-team-qualifying events) get it right according to the WBFLC. And arrange for the rework of the Laws in 200x to have the goal of clearing up those ambiguities that are "obvious" to the writers, but obviously not to the rank-and-file. I'm sure that in at least one ZOs case, he also wants you to assert your authority in the writing and interpretation of the Laws (when you choose to do so, rather than allow ZO or SO interpretation) over them in such a way that when you say "this is what we mean", the response is "Ok, we'll make sure our TDs and players get that information" rather than "[Chip Martel] noted that while decisions of the WBF Laws Commission are subject to the final approval of the Executive, the ACBL Laws Commission is the ultimate authority on Law in the ACBL." (Orlando Minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission) http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/LawsCommission.htm and "The ACBL Laws Commission is requested to recommend a change to Law 40 E 2 and further to interpret the Law to permit the zonal organization to designate levels of competition and events in which a participant may refer to his or her own convention card." (Anaheim BOD Item 002-124) http://www.acbl.org/minutes/002anaheim.htm (the latter, at least, did realize that though this is a "good idea". it is currently illegal, and has to wait until the Laws are revised). While I'm not as emphatic as some (and I do believe that March and April were low points in BLML, at least in terms of "I won't back down" and "proof by repeated assertion" are concerned) this would be nice. Not that I don't want WBFLC members to not feel welcome and not put forward their opinions (even if their opinion is "why don't you children quit squabbling. You're not getting anywhere, and this is the way we do it in WBF events, which should give you an idea how we think it should be interpreted"); I value all members input, especially the "rank-and-file" and the "world-class" ones (the former for their (our?) courage, the latter for the time spent with us joes, not for any hierarchical or better-than-thou reasons); I value the "unofficial advisory" nature we have been given (the "Grattan's notebook" syndrome). But pronouncements from the WBFLC should be just that - pronouncements, cried out for all the world to hear and obey (to the limits of the requirements set out in said pronouncements, of course). Opinions from the WBFLC members should not be treated as pronouncements by us (for all of Grattan's reasons), but, unless they are backed by pronouncements, should not be expected to be "the final word", either (for the same reasons). Either give your opinions the rule of Law, or allow that disagreement may be valid. 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 May 9 00:45:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48EjJ507176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 00:45:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f48EjDt07171 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 00:45:13 +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 KAA22820 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 10:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105081452.KAA22820@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.1.20010507084107.00b78bf0@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <3AEFE581.AFAC456F@link.net> <006601c0d460$08fe3400$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <6jRAoCAJQo86Ew1n@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010507084107.00b78bf0@127.0.0.1> Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 10:52:53 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 7 May 2001 at 8:58, Eric Landau wrote: > >One can assume that there is no such thing as a penalty for a >non-required alert in the ACBL. The ACBL's alert rules (with which I >include official interpretations thereof) are not only intricate and >complicated, but constantly being tinkered with. You have said this before, and I believe that your opinion has been heard, and such that the last part of it is no longer valid. Although there is some talk of revision, and maybe there should be, the Alert Procedure says "June 1988" and IIRC, was revised once since the major overhaul Dec 1987. This does not invalidate the sentence below... >The vast majority of players can't possbibly know all the rules, Although, most of the players that complain about this could spend 15 minutes cross-indexing their (simple) CC against the Alert Procedure, read the section on Doubles (which, I will admit, are labyrinthine), and ignore the rest of it. You don't have to know the 16-page document (or the one-page summary, even). You just have to know what parts of your card are Alertable, and for most of the "ooh, it's too big. I'll never understand that" crowd, would involve reading it once, with a copy of their CC in their hand and a pen to circle the Alertable calls. OTOH, that may be beyond some of these people's comprehension, too. Note: Eric, I do not include you in those last paragraphs. Your frustration, and mine, with the ACBL's approach to the Alert Procedure are evident, but you have shown yourself willing to put in the minimal amount of work necessary. You have also obviously shown a knowledge of the Alert Procedure that goes with the "I understand it. I think it's self-defeating, for these reasons, but I understand it" school. I'm sorry I twigged in response to you - I had a rant saved up for David desJardins on rgb, a couple of weeks ago, and never got around to it. So it came out here. >Yesterday at a local sectional, my partner asked the DIC whether we >should alert constructive raises of weak two-bids. His response, in >effect, was that he had no idea whether this was a required alert, and >therefore yes, we should alert it. That director is an NABC DIC, which >makes him one of the three highest-rated directors in the ACBL; he >regularly teaches the ACBL's training course for TDs. > Well, I always do (I wonder what system you two were playing :-) under the "strong bids that sound weak" rule. Strangely enough, under the "Alertable" box in the "Natural Calls" row of the Alert Chart, it says "unusual strength, shape or limitations". It really isn't very hard to find, if the DIC bothered to look. Unfortunately, this also means that I Alert our 2NT response to a weak 2. And yes, there have been times when the opps have been caught out by it going pass-pass-pass afterwards. >(She also asked whether we needed to alert our 1H/1S openings, which in >our methods may be made on (gasp!) four-card suits, but things haven't >gone quite that far yet.) > I, you know, wouldn't mind that all that much. After all, both times someone asked me whether partner's 1M bid was 4 or 5 cards before passing (despite it being clearly marked on our card, clearly available by their left hand), strangely enough, asker's partner played them for what they had - AKxxx+. 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 May 9 01:06:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48F4qV07217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 01:04:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f48F4jt07213 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 01:04:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-84-135.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.84.135]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f48F4QH02822 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 16:04:26 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001b01c0d7d0$28969320$8754063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested? Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:03:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 08 May 2001 11:13 Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested? > > Looking at this hand I reckon > North was most likely contemplating 5H (he > wouldn't often consider a double on an > aceless hand would he?). Since I feel 5H to > be mildly suggested I think double should be > allowed. However, at the table I might > decide that North more likely showed a > borderline almost double and require a 5H > bid (or that the pause was "information free" > and that the table result should stand). > > Tim > +=+ I think there is a clear possibility that he has a Spade holding that he finds difficult to evaluate. I would expect that to give him more difficulty than assessment whether to raise Hearts again. In practice I could see it probable that whatever South does the Director will rule against him. ("Let the AC sort it.") I agree Pass is not logical for South. ~ 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 May 9 01:13:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48FBvH07236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 01:11:57 +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-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 f48FBpt07232 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 01:11:52 +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 f48FBbK16490 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 11:11:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010508105402.00a9f3d0@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, 08 May 2001 11:13:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <3AF7ED59.4CA05F79@village.uunet.be> References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:58 AM 5/8/01, Herman wrote: >The law is not biased : the game is. As I see it, the Law >says that we should rule as to "what would have happened >if". That inherently implies that the strength of the >player influences this. To say that Garozzo is a mere >beginner, or that every player will play like Garozzo, that >is a biased point of view (either in one direction or the >other). Nobody is saying that Mr. Garozzo is a beginner, only that once in a while he does make beginner-level errors. He does. I have seen it happen. Is there anyone out there with a reasonable amount of competitive bridge experience who hasn't seen a player of Mr. Garozzo's stature make a beginner-level error? >As long as the law tries to re-establish what "would have >happened", then "for the class of player involved" must be >included. That would be true if the law required us to establish what most likely would have happened. But it doesn't. It merely requires us to enumerate all of the possible lines of play which are not "irrational". The fact that someone is an expert player means that what is careless or inferior for them would not be so for a lesser player, but does not necessarily mean that they are any more "rational" (by definition). > > I would wish 'normal' to be defined in > > relation to absolute qualities intrinsic to the > > game. > >And what standard would you set : John's beginner ? Mine ? >Me ? You ? David Burn ? Garozzo ? The standard is "includ[ing] play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational". It's the same for everyone -- or should be. You don't need a benchmark for level of ability. Beginners have nothing to do with the matter. If a defender in American football interferes with a pass, he is penalized for pass interference. Any defender receives the same penalty for the same foul. Nobody asks whether it would be "irrational" for him to fail to break up the pass had he not committed the foul. The same applies to a bridge player who commits the "foul" of claiming without a proper statement. The notion that a player who commits an infraction should receive a lesser penalty than one who commits the same infraction in the same situation because an official (or, worse yet, a committee of fellow players) believes him to be a better player would be abhorent in any other game. IMO, it should be equally abhorent in ours. 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 May 9 01:25:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48FNhG07254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 01:23:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f48FNat07250 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 01:23:36 +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 LAA23759 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 11:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105081531.LAA23759@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Failure to Alert? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <20010430171615.25670.cpmta@c000.sfo.cp.net> References: <20010430171615.25670.cpmta@c000.sfo.cp.net> Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:31:12 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote this a few days ago, from an account that probably confused the lot of you. And I only realized two days later that I didn't give a clue as to which Michael I was. So the message was at least useless. Sorry about that. However, I did not get any response (ok, one, private) to the question, and I think it actually is important, so I'm trying again (and formatting it nicely this time). Now, for the weirdie of the Canadian National Teams 0-1000 Flight Zone II qualifier: All white, ACBL alerting rules in effect. AKQx xx 7xx T984 Pd RHO You LHO 1C 2NT 3D* p *intended as limit raise in clubs, not alerted 3NT% AP %before bidding, Pd asks what 2NT is, gets "I can't remember". Only CC available is on your side, and folded. Now, the auction is over. Neither the natural nor either Unusual 2NT is Alertable in the ACBL in this auction. 3D is systemically Unusual vs. Unusual if 2NT shows D+H, or a limit raise for clubs if 2NT is C+D; it is natural if 2NT is natural. Obviously, you assumed it was UvU - you've played with both opponents before - however, you didn't check the card, either, and they could be playing something different with each other. What, if anything are you required to do before the opening lead for this possible failure to Alert, possible misbid? 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 May 9 01:44:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48FiQI07297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 01:44:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f48FiHt07292 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 01:44:17 +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 f48Fi3611024 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 11:44:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010508112941.00a9fa00@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, 08 May 2001 11:45:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure In-Reply-To: <200105081452.KAA22820@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010507084107.00b78bf0@127.0.0.1> <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <3AEFE581.AFAC456F@link.net> <006601c0d460$08fe3400$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <6jRAoCAJQo86Ew1n@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010507084107.00b78bf0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:52 AM 5/8/01, blml wrote: >Well, I always do (I wonder what system you two were playing :-) under >the "strong bids that sound weak" rule. Strangely enough, under the >"Alertable" box in the "Natural Calls" row of the Alert Chart, it says >"unusual strength, shape or limitations". It really isn't very hard to >find, if the DIC bothered to look. It's easy enough to find, but what does it mean, other than "not indentical to the way it's played by the person who wrote the rule"? If I am being told to alert any natural bid that shows "unusual strength, shape or limitations", what natural bids are those? What defines "usual strength, shape or limitations"? "Usual" for whom -- the world, the ACBL, the local area, the particular club you're playing at? Nobody knows what the real operative rules are because "unusual strength, shape or limitations" means something different to everyone. At least in my area we have top-level DICs who understand the problem and know that they really don't know what must be alerted -- I've heard the horror stories of TDs elsewhere who seem to be certain that it means whatever they want it to. A player should be able to approach any TD and ask, "We have an agreement that bid X means Y. Should we alert this?" and expect a definitive "yes" or "no" that doesn't depend on which TD they happen to ask. Until that happens, the ACBL alert procedure will remain dysfunctional. "I don't know if you're supposed to, so I guess you'd better" just doesn't hack it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 01:52:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48Fpw007332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 01:51:58 +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 f48Fppt07327 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 01:51:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-86-119.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.86.119]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f48FpWH22542; Tue, 8 May 2001 16:51:32 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003a01c0d7d6$bd5aedc0$8754063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" References: <004301c0d719$6d11a100$21b6f1c3@kooijman> <200105081428.KAA22236@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:50:35 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 08 May 2001 15:28 Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) > On 7 May 2001 at 19:08, "ton kooijman" wrote: > >> > >>From: "Kooijman, A." > >> > >>(snip) > >> > >>>I would prefer more suggestions on how > >>>to improve the laws instead of persisting > >>>in telling what the law means because > >>>you (reader) want it to be so. > > Michael Farebrother commented: > Well, BLML (much to DWS's chagrin) is a > forum for discussing both how the Laws as > written should be interpreted in "fall-through- > the-cracks" cases *and* how the Laws could > be improved (both by rewording and by reworking). > I believe strongly that both are important and > necessary; ----------- \x/ --------- > Yes, there should be a way for the rank-and-file > to get "how should this be interpreted". It should > be easy, and those decisions that have been made > should be located in a place easily accessible to all > (i.e. not "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, > stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on it saying > 'Beware of the Leopard'"). > +=+ Come on; in recent years the WBFLC minutes have been published for blml subscribers to read." +=+ > ----------------- \X/ -------------- > I'm sure that in at least one ZOs case, he > also wants you to assert your authority in > the writing and interpretation of the Laws (when > you choose to do so, rather than allow ZO or > SO interpretation) over them in such a way that > when you say "this is what we mean", the > response is "Ok, we'll make sure our TDs and > players get that information" rather than : > > "[Chip Martel] noted that while decisions of > the WBF Laws Commission are subject to the > final approval of the Executive, the ACBL Laws > Commission is the ultimate authority on Law in > the ACBL." > (Orlando Minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission) > and > "The ACBL Laws Commission is requested to > recommend a change to Law 40 E 2 and further > to interpret the Law to permit the zonal organization > to designate levels of competition and events in > which a participant may refer to his or her own > convention card." > (Anaheim BOD Item 002-124) -------------- \x/ ----------------- > But pronouncements from the WBFLC should be > just that - pronouncements, cried out for all the world > to hear and obey (to the limits of the requirements > set out in said pronouncements, of course). +=+ Well, the WBFLC could hardly complain of Michael's opinions! Those who have read its minutes of 24 August 1998 and 11th January 2000 will know that in this matter it is exercised by the conflict between the By-Laws of the WBF and the statutes of the ACBL. It does not believe the solution can be found below the level of the WBF Executive, and is prepared to allow the question to continue for a while, perhaps in the expectation that it will come to a resolution in the current General Review of the laws. I think we can legitimately question a procedure by which a Zone's representatives participate in the framing of law that is to operate in every Zone but their own. However, I also see better prospects of a solution if we do not rush precipitately into disputing 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 Wed May 9 02:32:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48GVpL07443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 02:31:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f48GVgt07439 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 02:31:44 +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 14xAOY-0001zV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 May 2001 16:31:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 17:30:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip what Grattan writes below is an excellent suggestion as to the ultimate raison d'etre of the blml forum. I think that if he, ton, Kojak and those with significant input to the Laws of the game as *written* tolerate our ramblings and discover the occasional grain of gold in the washings then blml can be considered to be more than just successful. It has become clear to me just how hard it is to write unambiguous Law, and again if Kaplan's interpretations can become part of the Law then again we should all be grateful. For me at least, as the law stands it is already very well written - what we actually *want* to happen mostly does happen and this is a *Good Thing*. Clarification should now be our major bent. Now to some nitpicking re "normal". I firmly believe that the Law should be applied so that beginner or expert alike receive approximately the same degree of protection. I rule differently for the class of player and this IMO *Must* remain within the scope of the TD's judgEment. 2 examples suffice: Today at the Japanese ladies Club. 1S p 3S (slow) P. 4S was bid (I was at the table playing) which happens to make. I would not adjust this, as the slow 3S could mean anything for the players at this table. At the YC I would have adjusted to 3S plus 1. YC ko teams Round of 16. (I posted this a couple of weeks ago) 1H P 3S(a) explained as any splinter, usually a singleton. Auction continues to 5H and before the opening lead the 3S bidder does not correct the MI as he believes it is a void. Opening leader is on a black suit guess and gets it wrong, he then double shots by saying he might have lead the other suit if he'd known it was a void. Anyway I ruled "No damage" but was left with whether to award a PP to the 3S bidder. His partner is an international but he is just a good club player, so I just issued a warning and had it been the other way round I'd have issues a 3 imp penalty. Had it been the round of 8 I would have issued a 3 imp penalty too. So I believe that the TD must continue to be able to exercise a lot of judgement, particularly where it involves the class of player. If that were removed from Law I think we'd be hard put to keep novices in the game. cheers john >> >+=+ When ton asks that the thrust of discussions >here be towards suggestion of what the future >effects of the law should be, I think he is putting >his finger on the most useful service that >argument can bring to the game. So, desirably, >discussions like this one should lead us to some >conclusion in that vein. > What we learn is that each subscriber's >personal experience colours his view of what a >'beginner' may be expected to do. The relevant >law requires the Director to make a subjective >assessment of the individual player. I believe >such subjective judgements are a legitimate >activity for players, but wherever possible it >seems appropriate that a Director should be >called upon to base his rulings on an objective >understanding of the game of duplicate bridge. > There are two basic moves that I would like >to see with regard to the footnote to Laws 69, >70,71. Since this footnote is a definition of >'normal' my first step would be to place it in >Chapter 1 of the book. My second wish would >be to rethink it. As things are this footnote >discriminates between one quality of player >and another: stronger players are advantaged >against the weaker in the interpretation of >the Law when it applies to them. The Law is >biased in favour of the stronger players and >there is no blindfold on the eyes of Justice. >To me that is repugnant. > I would wish 'normal' to be defined in >relation to absolute qualities intrinsic to the >game. That was the case with the footnote >as it appeared in the 1975 Code: > " 'Normal' includes the inferior or careless, > but not the irrational. " >We could perhaps enter a definition such as: > " Normal: to be considered 'normal' actions > must exclude anything irrational; not > excluded are inferior or careless actions. " > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 02:37:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48GbKq08607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 02:37:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f48GbAt08567 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 02:37:11 +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 14xATk-000FP8-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 May 2001 17:36:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 17:34:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) References: <004301c0d719$6d11a100$21b6f1c3@kooijman> <003901c0d784$165814a0$c49e60cb@u0m7o0> In-Reply-To: <003901c0d784$165814a0$c49e60cb@u0m7o0> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <003901c0d784$165814a0$c49e60cb@u0m7o0>, John Rosevear writes >From one rather new club director who just looks on here and is ocassionally >confused, can I suggest a solution that is used in another law book I have >been associated in the past > >It may be useful to use more notes to a law to explain and/or clarify the >intention in cases where ambiguity is possible or develops > >John R > The problem with arbitrating by using case law is that it becomes very problematic over a period of time. I still prefer to have only a few notes plus guidance as to interpretation, rather than a list of 20 cases against which to form a parallel judgement. -- 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 May 9 03:46:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48Hjp017245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 03:45:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f48Hjjt17241 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 03:45:46 +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 f48HjVG47663 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 13:45:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010508133022.00b5a8c0@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, 08 May 2001 13:47:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: References: <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:30 PM 5/8/01, John wrote: >Now to some nitpicking re "normal". I firmly believe that the Law >should be applied so that beginner or expert alike receive approximately >the same degree of protection. I rule differently for the class of >player and this IMO *Must* remain within the scope of the TD's >judgEment. > >2 examples suffice: > >Today at the Japanese ladies Club. >1S p 3S (slow) P. 4S was bid (I was at the table playing) which >happens to make. I would not adjust this, as the slow 3S could mean >anything for the players at this table. At the YC I would have adjusted >to 3S plus 1. > >YC ko teams Round of 16. (I posted this a couple of weeks ago) >1H P 3S(a) explained as any splinter, usually a singleton. Auction >continues to 5H and before the opening lead the 3S bidder does not >correct the MI as he believes it is a void. Opening leader is on a black >suit guess and gets it wrong, he then double shots by saying he might >have lead the other suit if he'd known it was a void. Anyway I ruled >"No damage" but was left with whether to award a PP to the 3S bidder. > >His partner is an international but he is just a good club player, so I >just issued a warning and had it been the other way round I'd have >issues a 3 imp penalty. Had it been the round of 8 I would have issued >a 3 imp penalty too. > >So I believe that the TD must continue to be able to exercise a lot of >judgement, particularly where it involves the class of player. If that >were removed from Law I think we'd be hard put to keep novices in the >game. cheers john It is blindingly obvious that one needs to know something about the (class of) player(s) involved to rule in John's examples, notwithstanding that the applicable laws he would rule under say nothing whatsoever about the class of player involved. The current discussion, however, is about the laws in which the dreaded phrase is actually used, namely the laws governing claims. Nobody wants to ignore ability when ruling on UI, MI, or possible penalties for violating procedure. But many of us do want to treat a claim as a claim, not have one set of rules for claims made by experts and a different set of rules for claims made by less experienced players. The very fact that class of player is not mentioned in the laws under which it preforce must be taken into account lends a great deal of weight to the interpretation that says that the inclusion of the phrase in L69-71 tells us that we should not take it into account when ruling on faulty claims, i.e. that the class of player involved does *not* turn plays that are "careless or inferior for the class of player involved" (but might not be for lesser players) into "irrational" ones. 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 May 9 04:32:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48IW6v17323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 04:32:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f48IVwt17318 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 04:31:59 +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 NAA29959 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 13:31:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010508132958.007c5590@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 13:29:58 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010508133022.00b5a8c0@127.0.0.1> References: <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:47 PM 5/8/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >It is blindingly obvious that one needs to know something about the >(class of) player(s) involved to rule in John's examples, >notwithstanding that the applicable laws he would rule under say >nothing whatsoever about the class of player involved. > >The current discussion, however, is about the laws in which the dreaded >phrase is actually used, namely the laws governing claims. Nobody >wants to ignore ability when ruling on UI, MI, or possible penalties >for violating procedure. But many of us do want to treat a claim as a >claim, not have one set of rules for claims made by experts and a >different set of rules for claims made by less experienced >players. The very fact that class of player is not mentioned in the What I have not yet understood is _why_ anyone wants this 'dual principle' setup. I can understand the Burn school, which wants to ignore playing ability all the time for everyone and institute strict and purely mechanical penalties wherever possible. I don't like that approach in the slightest, but I understand it. I both understand and agree with the approach that says that the TD [/AC] uses its best judgement to arrive at an equitable solution, and so takes into account the class of player involved in many situations. I do not understand why we would want to rule claims the first way and UI/MI/PP cases the other. But, then again, I obviously haven't ever figured out the problem people have with what I _thought_ was the normal attitude towards claims. I _thought_ that what the TD did in a disputed claim case was to look at the situation, figure out what would have happened without the claim [resolving close points against the claimer, but not assuming the claimer has suddenly become inept], and arrive at an equitable result. That's the method I have always employed, and it seems to work perfectly about 99.9% of the time. That is the method players _in my limited experience_ seem to expect. Now apparently this is just all wrong. Grattan tells me that the TD never allows an irregularity to take place when resolving a claim, even when the claimer has stated a line of play that includes one and it would benefit the non-claimers to allow it. So, apparently, being equitable and giving the benefit of the doubt to non-claimers does not involve giving them the result they would have gotten had the hand been played out, but instead may result in their getting a sunstantially worse result than the one the TD thinks they would have gotten absent a claim. Now Eric [and also Grattan] say that the claim law should be written so that the claimer may get a very substantially worse score than the TD thinks they would have gotten had the hand been played out, becuase they want the law written so that anything counts as a 'normal' line as long as it doesn't contain 'irrational' plays, and we have seen all sorts of really horrid plays stated to be 'not irrational' by TD's on this list. What I don't understand in either of these cases is _how does this make things better_? What _improvement_ in the game can we expect by dealing with claims in these ways? What _problem_ does the ordinary way of dealing with claims have, that requires these inequities as a solution? Now the first change in my claim-adjudicating worldview, the one that screws the non-claimers out of their equity, at least has the advantage of being so rare that it will likely have little effect. The second change, though, is such that, if I thought victory was more important than sportsmanship, I would dispute every single claim that I ever had made against me again. Because if we allow in the idea that 'normal' includes all plays that a rank beginner would make at his worst moments, then I can find you a 'normal' line in virtually every claim that yields fewer tricks than the number claimed. But, more seriously, no-one seems to understand why I think both of these changes have the very serious problem of destroying the ordinary view of claims. Again, my experience, which is very limited, says that both players and TD's assume that in disputed claim cases you decide what 'would have happened' had there been no claim, and resolve the case given that picture. I _hope_ you and Grattan both agree that the law can be read this way without distortion--that a sensible person with no hidden agenda could pick up the lawbook and think this is what it says. I have no hidden agenda, I think this is what the law says, so if I'm wrong I must be an idiot. So if we're going to do things the other way, please write the new laws in such a way that they _explain clearly to us the proceedure we are to use_, and please explain to us in this forum why the game of bridge will be better that way. >laws under which it preforce must be taken into account lends a great >deal of weight to the interpretation that says that the inclusion of >the phrase in L69-71 tells us that we should not take it into account >when ruling on faulty claims, i.e. that the class of player involved >does *not* turn plays that are "careless or inferior for the class of >player involved" (but might not be for lesser players) into >"irrational" ones. So, in other words, the fact that the laws go out of their way to talk about the class of player involved is evidence that the class of player involved is irrelevant? >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 Wed May 9 04:50:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48Inoq17353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 04:49:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f48Init17349 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 04:49:45 +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 NAA06121 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 13:49:39 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010508134745.007c7680@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 13:47:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010508105402.00a9f3d0@127.0.0.1> References: <3AF7ED59.4CA05F79@village.uunet.be> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:13 AM 5/8/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>As long as the law tries to re-establish what "would have >>happened", then "for the class of player involved" must be >>included. > >That would be true if the law required us to establish what most likely >would have happened. But it doesn't. It merely requires us to >enumerate all of the possible lines of play which are not >"irrational". The fact that someone is an expert player means that >what is careless or inferior for them would not be so for a lesser >player, but does not necessarily mean that they are any more "rational" >(by definition). That is one possible interpretation of the footnote. It isn't the one that occurs to most people that I know when they read that footnote. >> > I would wish 'normal' to be defined in >> > relation to absolute qualities intrinsic to the >> > game. >> >>And what standard would you set : John's beginner ? Mine ? >>Me ? You ? David Burn ? Garozzo ? > >The standard is "includ[ing] play that would be careless or inferior, >but not irrational". It's the same for everyone -- or should be. You _WHY_? Why should resolving Garozzo's claims works exactly like resolving the claims of the worst club player? >don't need a benchmark for level of ability. Beginners have nothing to >do with the matter. > >If a defender in American football interferes with a pass, he is >penalized for pass interference. Any defender receives the same >penalty for the same foul. Nobody asks whether it would be >"irrational" for him to fail to break up the pass had he not committed There are two radical differences here: 1) Claiming is a part of the game of bridge that I think should be _encouraged_. To increase the penalties for anyone who claims _imperfectly_ will decrease the numbers of claims. OTOH, crashing into pass receivers is something the football rulesmakers wanted to _discourage_. There is no danger that having penalties for it will somehow cause some _good_ element of the game of football to be less common. 2) In football, the penalties in every case [pass interference being _almost_ an exception] have nothing to do with the expectation of the play. For example, if a receiver breaks into the clear and will very likely be able to catch a pass for a 50 yard gain, the defender can grab his shirt and pull him down and get a penalty for holding--a penalty of 10 yards. OTOH, the same holding violation may occur on a running play, have _absolutely no effect on the play_, and still be penalized with the very same 10 yards. All the penalties in football are purely mechanical, and if this has the 'virtue' of treating everyone equally it also has the handicap of being totally inequitable. I see no reason why we shoudl think that a card game should be adjudicated by the same standards as an athletic sport. >the foul. The same applies to a bridge player who commits the "foul" >of claiming without a proper statement. The notion that a player who >commits an infraction should receive a lesser penalty than one who >commits the same infraction in the same situation because an official >(or, worse yet, a committee of fellow players) believes him to be a >better player would be abhorent in any other game. IMO, it should be >equally abhorent in ours. Well, except for cases like UI, and MI, and procedural penalties, right? If football had as few fouls as bridge does, I would think it would be improved by giving variable penalties based on the damage caused by the foul. I.e., I would penalize a holding penalty that did no harm with no yards, and one that cost a team a touchdown with a touchdown. That doesn't work in football because there are 20 fouls a game and because figuring out what might have happened is way too hard--if Garozzo blocks his suits once a year, the best quarterback in all of football overthrows a pass 5 times every single game. But it works just fine in bridge 99.9% of the time. >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 Wed May 9 05:32:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48JWUR17424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 05:32:30 +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 f48JWOt17420 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 05:32:25 +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 OAA21957 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 14:32:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010508143025.007b3d70@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 14:30:25 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn) In-Reply-To: <004301c0d719$6d11a100$21b6f1c3@kooijman> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:08 PM 5/7/2001 +0200, ton kooijman wrote: >> >>From: "Kooijman, A." >> >>(snip) >> >>>I would prefer more suggestions on how to improve the laws instead >>of persisting in telling what the law >>means because you (reader) want it to be so. >> >>We've already had that lecture from several others, who believe that >>some of us readers have hidden agendas when we don't get the same >>meaning from the Laws' English as they do. I would prefer that the >>LC concentrate its efforts on clarifying the Laws to communicate >>whatever meanings they have in mind, instead of persisting in >>telling us how to read. > >Please explain to me what the difference between those two is: >'communicating whatever meanings they have in mind' and > >'telling you how to read'. Or similar question: 'tell me how to read your >message'. I'm sure Marvin can, and will, reply on his own. But here's my own $0.02 worth. [Which, given inflation, isn't even worth the little bit it used to be worth.] Some members of this list, among whom I must unfortunately single out Grattan [sorry, Grattan], seem to believe that many contributors to this forum have hidden (or not-so-hidden) agendas of their own, and deliberately try to twist the words of the laws to meet those agendas. In other words, these people believe that someone like me may look at the text of a law, see that it was obviously meant to produce one result, but, upon seeing that this result is not what they _want_ the law to say, they twist and distort the words to make it sound like it means what they want it to mean. The solution to this problem is to simply tell such people to look at the laws as they are written, and accept them. According to this view, people like me can see what the laws mean, and are being deliberately obstinant. Now, in fact, I think there are very few people on this list who ever do that, and most of the ones that do explicitly declare when they are doing so. So when I have written a post in which I quote the relevant law numbers and argue that they seem to mean 'x', it is simply not helpful to get a post in reply that says "If you'll read Law XXa1, you'll see that your approach is incorrect." Well, since L XXa1 was one of the ones I mentioned, it's pretty likely that I _did_ read it, and apparently I don't see where it says that my approach is incorrect. Now, obviously, if the law is clear and I'm just being perverse, this reply would be quite adequate. But if I genuinely thought L XXa1 meant what I said it meant, then how can it be a surprise if I don't find this reply to be conclusive? But then when I ask again for clarification, I am told that there's no point 'going around in circles' or belaboring the point. The recent [distressing, for me] discussion of claim law is a good example. I _really, sincerely_ believed that when the law said that I was to arrive at an equitable result, that meant that I was to imagine how play would have gone absent a claim [taking close points against declarer], and assign a result _as if_ play had really gone that way. I really, honestly, did not see, and do not now see, how anything related to any of the claim laws make any distinction between illegal plays and legal but irrational plays. If a claim 'breaks down' as soon as declarer makes an irrational play, and irrational plays are ruled out by the footnote, then my example declarer who crashes his honors should have had his play disallowed. If, OTOH, we allow claim statements to go through when those claim statements contain irrational plays like crashing honors, then why don't they go through when they contain irrational plays like leads from the wrong hand or revokes? I never got an answer to my question. I was told to read the laws, that somehow L70 A, D or E would obviously clear up this question. I had read those laws--they say nothing at all about any difference between irrational-and-illegal plays and irrational-but-legal plays. I could read the law to disallow both, which I don't like, or read it to allow both, which I do, but not to allow one but not the other. I asked for a clarification, but never got one. DWS, making the same point I was, was criticized for persisting in discussing a question after it had been dicussed enough. [I assume that I didn't get this criticism only because my posts are now among those which certain of the power-that-be don't even read. :)] So in cases like this, what would be most helpful is that if you, Ton, or others connected with official lawmaking bodies, think that _the current law, as written, already solves this problem_, you show us which law, and carefully explain even to the thick-headed among us how it is that the words as written must obviously mean what you say they mean. If you think that the law is ambiguous, but that the lawmakers have officially resolved this problem, please give us a clear official proclamation saying how the law must be read, along with clear reasons why the committee decided things that way. Then make sure that this interpretation is promulgated in your jurisdiction to the best of your ability. If you think the law is ambiguous, and have your own favored interpretation of it, then allow us to argue with you _as if_ we were your equals, even when we are not. Thanks for listening. My apologies if I have offended anyone here. I assure you it wasn't really my intention, although you may not believe that. >ton Respectfully but insubordinately, :) 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 May 9 06:17:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48KFrI01265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 06:15:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f48KFjt01222 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 06:15:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f48KFHf17680 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 May 2001 16:15:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200105082015.f48KFHf17680@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:15:17 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010508134745.007c7680@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> from "Grant Sterling" at May 08, 2001 01:47:45 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 13:47:45 -0500 > From: Grant Sterling > > >> > I would wish 'normal' to be defined in > >> > relation to absolute qualities intrinsic to the > >> > game. > >> > >>And what standard would you set : John's beginner ? Mine ? > >>Me ? You ? David Burn ? Garozzo ? > > > >The standard is "includ[ing] play that would be careless or inferior, > >but not irrational". It's the same for everyone -- or should be. You > > _WHY_? Why should resolving Garozzo's claims works exactly > like resolving the claims of the worst club player? > > There are two radical differences here: > 1) Claiming is a part of the game of bridge that I think should > be _encouraged_. To increase the penalties for anyone who claims > _imperfectly_ will decrease the numbers of claims. OTOH, crashing into > pass receivers is something the football rulesmakers wanted to _discourage_. > There is no danger that having penalties for it will somehow cause some > _good_ element of the game of football to be less common. Because there should be a minimum standard of claim that is defined that everyone can refer to as the level that is accepted and anything beyond that is invalid and not allowed or condoned. I have many flight B players in the games that I direct who are quite capable of making good plays, but usually don't. Why is it that the solid flight A players can be accepted as making a solid play but they aren't? And where/how do you draw the line of what is acceptible and unacceptible or superiod and inferior? If you make clear cut lines that all can see and use, then it is more equitable. You also reduce the number of claims that the directors always favor the good players and penalize the bad players (which I've heard alot and this is even from players who play predominantly outside our area). The idea that claims can and should be evaluated by the level of player strikes me in the very Orwellian sense of "all players are equal, but some are more equal than others." In others words, because of your interest in encouraging claims in the game, you are encouraging good players to make weak nebulous claims (or G! forbid, just facing their cards without a claim) because they'll be protected into a solid line of play rather than if they mistate their claim or play negligently, they may make a mistake. It encourages good players to make sloppy claims. If you want to encourage something, you should encourage good claims and that means penalizing bad ones and rewarding good ones. I think that bad claims should be discouraged and I find that good players are more apt to make weak, nebulous claims. And they are also the ones most apt to yell and scream like children when their poor claims are not given to them like manna...they obviously knew about such-and-such, but couldn't be bothered to say it...well tough. They need to learn to make intelligent claims or not claim at all. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 06:23:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48KMJr03525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 06:22:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f48KMCt03496 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 06:22:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f48KLju17794 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 May 2001 16:21:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200105082021.f48KLju17794@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:21:45 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "John (MadDog) Probst" at May 08, 2001 05:34:50 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 17:34:50 +0100 > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > In article <003901c0d784$165814a0$c49e60cb@u0m7o0>, John Rosevear > writes > >From one rather new club director who just looks on here and is ocassionally > >confused, can I suggest a solution that is used in another law book I have > >been associated in the past > > > >It may be useful to use more notes to a law to explain and/or clarify the > >intention in cases where ambiguity is possible or develops > > > >John R > > > The problem with arbitrating by using case law is that it becomes very > problematic over a period of time. I still prefer to have only a few > notes plus guidance as to interpretation, rather than a list of 20 cases > against which to form a parallel judgement. Hmmm...I think the problem is that the law books are written more for the frequent and higher level directors and not for the club level director. To the higher level directors, the legalese may be more clear, but to the less frequent club directors, the laws are not necessarily clear. I'm a mid-level director, and when I play at club games, I frequently have club directors ask me to step aside during a game and have them give me situations which the laws describe, but they can't tell what the language of the law implies in a given situation. So they ask me to help interpret. I try, and usually get it right, but sometimes get it wrong (I also make sure that I talk with the several higher ranked directors in our area regularly about complicated ruling situations to clarify for myself). However, putting more examples in the footnotes or perhaps to include an example section at the end of the book would help a lot. Several years ago, the ACBL put out a guide book that was an addendum to the LB and in it, they did put some explanatory notes about various items in the laws (including a flow chart of the revoke trick penalties) that was very helpful. I had a copy and ended up donating it to one of the local full-time clubs and they use it there. Anything that can help the grass roots director with interpretting some of the legalese is a good thing (IMHO). Those who don't need it can ignore it, but those who do need it can find it. Why not? -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 06:47:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48KjOU07915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 06:45:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f48KjHt07910 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 06:45:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f48Kio318126 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 May 2001 16:44:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200105082044.f48Kio318126@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:44:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200105081452.KAA22820@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> from "Michael Farebrother" at May 08, 2001 10:52:53 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Michael Farebrother > Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 10:52:53 -0400 > > >The vast majority of players can't possbibly know all the rules, > > Although, most of the players that complain about this could spend 15 > minutes cross-indexing their (simple) CC against the Alert Procedure, > read the section on Doubles (which, I will admit, are labyrinthine), and > ignore the rest of it. > > You don't have to know the 16-page document (or the one-page summary, > even). You just have to know what parts of your card are Alertable, and > for most of the "ooh, it's too big. I'll never understand that" crowd, > would involve reading it once, with a copy of their CC in their hand and > a pen to circle the Alertable calls. OTOH, that may be beyond some of > these people's comprehension, too. > Well, many club players who don't have access to the web and don't travel to tournaments, find it harder to get a hold of the 16-page document and often ask the directors what is and isn't alertable. So, are you saying, that club players who don't have access to an alert table can expect to be punished for not knowing it? Another problem is that the directors often give them different opinions on whether something is alertable or not. > >Yesterday at a local sectional, my partner asked the DIC whether we > >should alert constructive raises of weak two-bids. His response, in > >effect, was that he had no idea whether this was a required alert, and > >therefore yes, we should alert it. That director is an NABC DIC, which > >makes him one of the three highest-rated directors in the ACBL; he > >regularly teaches the ACBL's training course for TDs. > > > Well, I always do (I wonder what system you two were playing :-) under > the "strong bids that sound weak" rule. Strangely enough, under the > "Alertable" box in the "Natural Calls" row of the Alert Chart, it says > "unusual strength, shape or limitations". It really isn't very hard to > find, if the DIC bothered to look. > Eric was playing EHAA which means that all 2-level openers show 6-12 HCP and 5+ in the suit bid. The suit should be at least as long or longer than any other suit. The responses include 2NT which is invitational and denies 3+ in partner's suit and a direct raise which is invitational with 3+ in partner's suit. non-jump responses in new suits are not forcing and jump responses in a new suit are forcing to game. Pretty simple...but it isn't clear whether the direct raise is alertable and the alert procedure isn't that clear. At a minimum, a courtesy alert isn't unreasonable and guards against it definitely being alertable. > >(She also asked whether we needed to alert our 1H/1S openings, which in > >our methods may be made on (gasp!) four-card suits, but things haven't > >gone quite that far yet.) > > I, you know, wouldn't mind that all that much. After all, both times > someone asked me whether partner's 1M bid was 4 or 5 cards before > passing (despite it being clearly marked on our card, clearly available > by their left hand), strangely enough, asker's partner played them for > what they had - AKxxx+. > Well, I have to say that I know many people who incorrectly fill out their convention card and don't get punished for it. Or use the older invalid convention cards because they've been playing for years with this partner...or have changed something in their system and didn't update their CC, etc, etc. I often find that if I'm not sure, I check the card and sometimes will ask as well. The point of the game is to play bridge and not to win by legalese. If I can protect myself, I do. And that means sometimes asking about agreements in addition to looking them up. Just my perspective. I think if more people tried to do the "right" thing beforehand instead of the legal thing and then bellow for the director afterwards and seek redress then it would be a friendlier game. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 08:30:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48MUD319262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 08:30:13 +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 f48MU5t19220 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 08:30:06 +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 SAA14209 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 18:29:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA27205 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 May 2001 18:29:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 18:29:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200105082229.SAA27205@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > The question is what is > the Director to do when there is an objection to a > claim, there is an irregularity embodied in the > statement of clarification, Law 70 gives him no > powers to apply penalties that would apply in play, ... Apologies for coming in late, but it isn't obvious to me that L70 does not give such powers. "As equitably as possible" might or might not be read to include penalties, at least for some irregularities. Of course there are other laws that apply to specific kinds of irregularities. > and any conceptual play that he substitutes must be > 'normal' yes > (an illegal play not being 'normal'). But this isn't so clear. As others have said, in many cases the NOS has the explicit right to accept an illegal play if it is to their advantage. Of course we all agree that an illegal play that benefits the claimer will not be allowed. (Don't we?) > At 09:22 PM 4/30/2001 +0200, Anton Witzen wrote: > >you will be ashtonished ro read in the answer: > >By the claim, the revoke becomes established. South has to give 2 tricks to EW > >L63A3, 64A1 > From: Grant Sterling > It is compatible with the Laws as written, Ummm, I don't think so. There are L44C and 64B3, as mentioned at length in another thread. > and with common TD practice. This, alas, I believe. There seems to be widespread understanding of what happens when a claim statement includes an illegal play. Either we need an "accepted jurisprudence" or clearer guidelines in the next Laws version. Or both. Whatever guidance is given should also address the situation of an illegal play that takes place immediately prior to a claim. When does the NOS still have a right to accept or waive penalties? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 09:20:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48NKTg07116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 09:20:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f48NKMt07073 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 09:20:23 +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 PAA26345 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 15:20:07 -0800 Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 15:19:39 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Legality and hard feelings Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We've talked about this, or at least about similar situations, before on the list in theory, but I faced this one in real play for the first time at an ACBL Regional last month: RHO opened 1C, alerted. They had only one CC on the table, folded in half and stuck underneath a bidding-box. I wasn't able to see the "minor openings" section, but by craning my neck could make out the "General Approach" box at the top, and see that Standard American was checked, and 2C was the only Strong Forcing Opening checked. I had something like a 4342 10-count, and doubled. Partner alerted. The opponents asked. The conversation was something like this: "That shows cl... no, hold on, what did 1C show?" "Could be short." "In that case never mind, it's a normal takeout double." "What would it have shown over Precision?" "Clubs and hearts." The opponents bid to 3NT, and before the opening lead called for a director. Declarer said he wanted my partner sent away from the table so he could ask me a question. (At this point it was perfectly obvious to me what the question was going to be, and I knew I didn't want to answer it.) The director -- reasonably inexperienced but nonetheless a professional ACBL TD -- sent my partner away and remained at the table during the questioning. "What did your double show?" "Partner's explanation was correct." "What did you think my 1C was?" I had a hard time choosing my next words. Perhaps a little too icily I said "I didn't ask what 1C meant," and tried to describe the position the CC had been in without saying explicitly whether I had looked. (The CC had since been moved, when dummy recorded the contract on it, and now it was completely out of sight under the bidding box.) Declarer said in a very agitated tone "you couldn't see any convention card! Now TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK MY BID MEANS." I looked at the director. He looked back. Trying to be polite, I said "I am almost completely certain I don't have to answer that. Would you please check, director?" The director went away looking perplexed and sought out the DIC. About two minutes later he returned, informed declarer he wasn't entitled to the information, and let my partner return. Declarer looked ready to spit nails at every trick. I made a point of deliberately not giving any signals that would tell him whether I had C+H or a takeout double. Partner meanwhile had lost his concentration because it had been so long since the auction. He scored up a completely routine 3NT, glared sullenly, signed the scoresheet, and went to the next table. For the rest of his life he will remember my name and what an a(r?)****** I am. The feeling is mutual, except I don't know his name, because he wasnt wearing a nametag and his CC, you'll recall, was largely out of sight. --- My question to the list is not so much about what the law says -- but rather how I, as a player, can best handle the situation to avoid a> making an enemy and b> being left with such a bad taste in my mouth I half wish I'd given in and just told declarer my distribution. Likewise, how best as a director to defuse this situation if I am called to it. --- Postscript. The same situation (1C alerted, X alerted on speculation, explanation asked for, it turned out to be standard), after having not come up at my table in the years previous, came up a second time that same session. Only this time my partner's explanation was accepted without further questioning. (And the slightly misleading "he has cl, um" was gone. Practice makes perfect.) GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 09:38:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f48Nc2G13315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 09:38:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f48Nbst13275 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 09:37:55 +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 PAA27251 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 15:37:41 -0800 Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 15:37:13 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] 14 and 12 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Two little puzzlements presented themselves at the club last week. We had a situation where, after looking at their hands but before making a call, a pair noticed one of them had 14 cards and one had 12. Puzzlement #1: This was the first time the hand was played. The "standard fix" is to just redeal the board. Problem is --- L6D1 applies "before the auction begins"... but the auction period had begun already for both sides (the two players with 13 each having counted and sorted.) L13 is a strange law. It includes a whole paragraph (what to do if the player with an incorect number has already called) that comes before L13A. Very few other laws have such a section, and none that cover an entire case equal in importance to the ones in 13A and 13B. Perhaps we a nod to ASCII we call this first paragraph "L13@"? But the problem here is that neither L6D1 nor L13B seems to tell us what is supposed to happen when a board is found wrong during the first time it is played. In practice, here we award a redeal and no penalty aside from a reminder to count cards. (There being no hand records, there's no such thing as restoring the board to its original condition.) --- The second curiosity, to me, concerns L24. Suppose I do know which of East's cards to transfer to West's hand to make it right, and that I deem the information "inconsequential enough" to allow the hand to proceed. One of West's cards was clearly held in a position where East could have seen its face for some time! Do I apply L24 in addition to L13B now? Or does the "proceed normally" of 13B take precedence? For that matter - why not just USE L24 as THE penalty if one player has 14 and his partner has 12, instead of assigning an ArtAS? The laws don't currently allow this if the information is "consequential" but maybe they should. It'd let the players obtain a bridge result, which is a Good Thing. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 10:16:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f490Fwj25434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 10:15:58 +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 f490Fpt25430 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 10:15:52 +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 RAA21392; Tue, 8 May 2001 17:15:36 -0700 Message-Id: <200105090015.RAA21392@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Legality and hard feelings In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 May 2001 15:19:39 -0800." Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 17:15:36 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: [part of story snipped] > The opponents bid to 3NT, and before the opening lead called for a > director. Declarer said he wanted my partner sent away from the table so > he could ask me a question. (At this point it was perfectly obvious to me > what the question was going to be, and I knew I didn't want to answer it.) > > The director -- reasonably inexperienced but nonetheless a professional > ACBL TD -- sent my partner away and remained at the table during the > questioning. > > "What did your double show?" > > "Partner's explanation was correct." > > "What did you think my 1C was?" > > I had a hard time choosing my next words. Perhaps a little too icily I > said "I didn't ask what 1C meant," and tried to describe the position the > CC had been in without saying explicitly whether I had looked. (The CC had > since been moved, when dummy recorded the contract on it, and now it was > completely out of sight under the bidding box.) > > Declarer said in a very agitated tone "you couldn't see any convention > card! Now TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK MY BID MEANS." > > I looked at the director. He looked back. Trying to be polite, I said "I > am almost completely certain I don't have to answer that. Would you please > check, director?" > > The director went away looking perplexed and sought out the DIC. About two > minutes later he returned, informed declarer he wasn't entitled to the > information, and let my partner return. > > Declarer looked ready to spit nails at every trick. . . . [more snipped] > My question to the list is not so much about what the law says -- but > rather how I, as a player, can best handle the situation to avoid a> > making an enemy and b> being left with such a bad taste in my mouth I half > wish I'd given in and just told declarer my distribution. Likewise, how > best as a director to defuse this situation if I am called to it. Here are my recommendations: (a) I think the best way to avoid making an enemy of a player like that is not to play against him. This can be accomplished by suddenly getting sick when he comes to your table. This might be easier than it seems; there have been a few players in my bridge-playing career the mere sight of whom was enough to make me sick. However, if this proves to be too difficult, the second method would be, when he starts acting in this manner, to shoot him. It's hard to make an enemy with a dead person. (b) As for being left with a bad taste in your mouth, the best way to avoid this is to remind yourself what a great service you have done for the local bridge community by shooting this player. (c) As for how the director should behave in this situation, I think a large amount of diplomacy is needed. My answers to the first two questions should make it clear that this is a topic I know nothing about. That's why I don't direct. :) Really, I don't think you did anything wrong, except for the remark "I didn't ask what what 1C meant", which could have sounded sarcastic. That's the kind of thing that I usually regret saying after I've said it. Other than that, if you stand up for your rights without being haughty about it, and are able to stay polite and respectful and humble and deferent in the process, there's not much more you can do. Some people are going to get mad and there's nothing you can do about it. Oh, well. -- Adam > --- > > Postscript. The same situation (1C alerted, X alerted on speculation, > explanation asked for, it turned out to be standard), after having not > come up at my table in the years previous, came up a second time that same > session. Only this time my partner's explanation was accepted without > further questioning. (And the slightly misleading "he has cl, um" was > gone. Practice makes perfect.) > > GRB > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 13:20:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f493JuR26263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 13:19:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f493Jnt26259 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 13:19:50 +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 XAA08114 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 23:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105090327.XAA08114@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Reply-To: michael@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200105082044.f48Kio318126@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <200105082044.f48Kio318126@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:27:27 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8 May 2001 at 16:44, Ted Ying wrote: >> From: Michael Farebrother >> Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 10:52:53 -0400 >> >> >The vast majority of players can't possbibly know all the rules, >> >> Although, most of the players that complain about this could spend 15 >> minutes cross-indexing their (simple) CC against the Alert Procedure, >> read the section on Doubles (which, I will admit, are labyrinthine), and >> ignore the rest of it. >> >> You don't have to know the 16-page document (or the one-page summary, >> even). You just have to know what parts of your card are Alertable, and >> for most of the "ooh, it's too big. I'll never understand that" crowd, >> would involve reading it once, with a copy of their CC in their hand and >> a pen to circle the Alertable calls. OTOH, that may be beyond some of >> these people's comprehension, too. >> > >Well, many club players who don't have access to the web and don't >travel to tournaments, find it harder to get a hold of the 16-page >document and often ask the directors what is and isn't alertable. True, but any club that doesn't have the 1 large page Alert chart available to their members (or better yet, posted somewhere), are mistreating those members. Having said that, you raise a valid point. And I have sympathy for those people (witness my minirant earlier today about ensuring that pronouncements from the WBFLC get to the bridge players in the various zones). It is, also, a point I have not before heard, and the response to Eric to which you raise this point is completely unusable as a rebuttal of it. I have the attitude I declaimed previously toward people who say that "what's alertable changes all the time, and it's so complicated that I could never know what's alertable and what isn't". These people have access to the Alert Procedure :-) (Eric's comment about "weak bids that sound strong" being ambiguous is a separate issue that I will respond to separately). I'm sorry, but it's an old, tired rant that actually isn't true any more (it's still huge, unclear, complicated, and sometimes unintuitive; but it hasn't changed in 3 years, and *unless you're a TD, you don't need to know what's alertable*, as long as you know what's alertable *in your system*. Frankly, the ACBL has much larger problems than one to which it has listened to the detractors and done what it could about their concerns (subject to their idea of what an Alert should do). To your point, well, "I will have to think about it"(TM). >So, are you saying, that club players who don't have access to an >alert table can expect to be punished for not knowing it? Another >problem is that the directors often give them different opinions >on whether something is alertable or not. > That is difficult to deal with, because there are many directors who can't be bothered to read the Alert Procedure themselves, never mind have one available to check. So they "gut-check" it, as they do many book rulings, and this is part of the reason that ACBL TDs (thankfully, less frequently at tournament level) are considered to be random and untrustworthy. I will admit my bias - I am a person to whom remembering large amounts of semi-randomly-organized material is easy, and in fact interesting. I am also a person who feels no shame in saying "I don't know. But I know where to look it up." I realize that this is a talent shared by few; which is why I don't expect players to know the Alert Procedure. I do expect TDs, however, to know where they can look up the information, quickly, if they do not know it (and through repetition, shouldn't have to look it up 90% of the time). >> >Yesterday at a local sectional, my partner asked the DIC whether we >> >should alert constructive raises of weak two-bids. His response, in >> >effect, was that he had no idea whether this was a required alert, and >> >therefore yes, we should alert it. That director is an NABC DIC, which >> >makes him one of the three highest-rated directors in the ACBL; he >> >regularly teaches the ACBL's training course for TDs. >> > >> Well, I always do (I wonder what system you two were playing :-) under >> the "strong bids that sound weak" rule. > >Eric was playing EHAA which means that all 2-level openers show >6-12 HCP and 5+ in the suit bid. Yes, I know (this is why the smiley after wondering about system). I thought it was clear in my response that "when I'm playing your system, I Alert". It is well known in many places that EL plays EHAA, and fairly well known on BLML that I do, occasionally, as well (I've even had the cheek to ask him bidding questions, solely on the basis of arguing with him on BLML). I'm sorry - I should have been more clear. >> >(She also asked whether we needed to alert our 1H/1S openings, which in >> >our methods may be made on (gasp!) four-card suits, but things haven't >> >gone quite that far yet.) >> >> I, you know, wouldn't mind that all that much. After all, both times >> someone asked me whether partner's 1M bid was 4 or 5 cards before >> passing (despite it being clearly marked on our card, clearly available >> by their left hand), strangely enough, asker's partner played them for >> what they had - AKxxx+. >> >Well, I have to say that I know many people who incorrectly fill out >their convention card and don't get punished for it. Or use the >older invalid convention cards because they've been playing for >years with this partner...or have changed something in their system >and didn't update their CC, etc, etc. I often find that if I'm not >sure, I check the card and sometimes will ask as well. The point of >the game is to play bridge and not to win by legalese. If I can >protect myself, I do. And that means sometimes asking about agreements >in addition to looking them up. Just my perspective. I think if more >people tried to do the "right" thing beforehand instead of the legal >thing and then bellow for the director afterwards and seek redress >then it would be a friendlier game. > Well, yes. But do look at what happened in my case. I assume you don't look and ask in order to ensure that your partner knows what's going on, or to say "look, pd, I'm really surprised they've opened hearts, because I have a stack". And I hope you don't get too upset when you look, and ask something that is clearly on their card, and the UI given matches your hand, and partner uses the UI successfully, and they call the TD, and she adjusts the score. In other words, BLs are bad, but people who get upset with people who want to play the game "by the Laws" - including L72A1 and L74A - are also bad. I also think that people who do improper things because they're "easier" and "friendlier" than following proper procedure are bad for the game in the long run, but then I have the mind of a TD rather than either a player or a LOL. I realize that my opinion in this matter is a minority one. 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 May 9 13:40:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f493eZ827125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 13:40:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f493eUt27121 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 13:40:30 +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 NAA22950 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 13:45:18 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 09 May 2001 13:31:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:38:52 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 09/05/2001 01:36:26 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: [big snip] >A player should be able to approach any TD >and ask, "We have an agreement that bid X >means Y. Should we alert this?" and expect >a definitive "yes" or "no" that doesn't >depend on which TD they happen to ask. [snip] By one method of counting attendance, Australia's Summer Festival of Bridge is the fourth largest event in the world (behind the three ACBL Nationals). It therefore has to be run in parallel at two separate hotels. A few years ago, the Victorian CTD presiding at one of the hotels was asked, "Do I have to alert Simple Stayman?" He answered, "Yes." Meanwhile, at the other hotel, the Canberran CTD was asked the same question, and answered, "No." The Victorian CTD's position on alerting was based on the concept that all *conventional* bids should be alerted. I prefer the Canberran CTD's idea of only alerting *unusual* bids. (Simple Stayman is a default convention in Australia.) This is the rationale alert regs should strive for. By this reasoning, both the Canberra CTD and I would require a natural, non-conventional, 2C response to 1NT (which is a highly unusual method) to be alerted. 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 May 9 13:47:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f493l7k27149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 13:47:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f493l1t27145 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 13:47:01 +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 XAA08616 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 23:54:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105090354.XAA08616@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) Reply-To: michael@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <003a01c0d7d6$bd5aedc0$8754063e@pacific> References: <004301c0d719$6d11a100$21b6f1c3@kooijman> <200105081428.KAA22236@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <003a01c0d7d6$bd5aedc0$8754063e@pacific> Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:54:40 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8 May 2001 at 16:50, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Michael Farebrother > > >----------- \x/ --------- >> Yes, there should be a way for the rank-and-file >> to get "how should this be interpreted". It should >> be easy, and those decisions that have been made >> should be located in a place easily accessible to all >> (i.e. not "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, >> stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on it saying >> 'Beware of the Leopard'"). >> >+=+ Come on; in recent years the WBFLC >minutes have been published for blml subscribers >to read." +=+ >> I was exaggerating for emphasis, and because I just couldn't resist using the quote. Anybody who didn't immediately recognize it, go back for remedial SF. You won't regret it :-) Of course, I have the dubious pleasure of being castigated, in the same day, by one person for noting that blml-readers get access to things, and by another for assuming that everyone has access to the ACBL Alert Procedure (because they are not net-enabled). And in both cases I am talking about the same rank-and-file - i.e. not us "privileged ones". And I do consider myself privileged to hold the position that I, as a BLML reader, have. I realize that the WBFLC have difficulties ensuring that ZOs continue the distribution efforts they start. I realize that that last statement is somewhat understating the true position. But - it shouldn't be necessary for Ian McA., if he wishes to know the official position on something, to guess that asking me (who has no official connection to the WBF, except being a member, and no official connection to the ACBL, except being a member and a TD) is the likeliest way of getting it - because I know where on the web, or in the blml archives, there exist copies of the information needed. That I am likelier to know the answer than the TD at his club, either here or at home, or the TDs at any tournament he is likely to attend (save, of course, the NABC in Toronto upcoming), or even rulings@acbl.org . This is what I mean by publishing to the rank-and-file. [later, on ensuring that certain ZOs adhere to the requirements they've agreed to w.r.t the WBFLC] >+=+ Well, the WBFLC could hardly complain of >Michael's opinions! Thank you . :-) >Those who have read its minutes >of 24 August 1998 and 11th January 2000 will >know that in this matter it is exercised by the conflict That's a very - um - interesting verb to use in this situation. Must be a Britishism that didn't come over here - took me three tries to guess what G. might have meant. >It does not believe the solution can be >found below the level of the WBF Executive, and >is prepared to allow the question to continue for a >while, perhaps in the expectation that it will come >to a resolution in the current General Review of the >laws. I really, truly, hope so. I also hope that with the move towards the ACBL becoming more of a ZO, and leaving the CBF and USBF (and Mexico and Bermuda, of course) the positions of NCBOs, that this will do much to bring about a reduction in the "two worlds" of Duplicate Bridge. > I think we can legitimately question a procedure >by which a Zone's representatives participate in the >framing of law that is to operate in every Zone but >their own. However, I also see better prospects of a >solution if we do not rush precipitately into disputing >it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I hope you are correct. I realize that the tradition and the feelings on either side are very strong, and that it can't be fixed "just like that". But as a Canadian, I know what happens to one's reputation when a significant part of one's country says "We want to be independent, except when being considered a part of Canada is good for us, then we want a disproportionate representation, so that our voice isn't drowned out. And if it ever is, we'll just ignore it, and pretend it doesn't exist." It has been a drain on our economy, and the value of our dollar, for 30 years, and hurts Quebec more than the rest of Canada. I fear for World Bridge, and the ACBL in particular, if this continues, and gets the publicity that Olympic status may give it. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 14:15:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f494Exb27207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 14:14:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f494Eqt27203 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 14:14:53 +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 AAA09239 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 00:22:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105090422.AAA09239@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Reply-To: michael@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.1.20010508112941.00a9fa00@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010507084107.00b78bf0@127.0.0.1> <3.0.5.32.20010429194308.01162590@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3AEC8DE5.22638412@link.net> <3AEFE581.AFAC456F@link.net> <006601c0d460$08fe3400$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <6jRAoCAJQo86Ew1n@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010507084107.00b78bf0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010508112941.00a9fa00@127.0.0.1> Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 00:22:32 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8 May 2001 at 11:45, Eric Landau wrote: >At 10:52 AM 5/8/01, blml wrote: > >>Well, I always do (I wonder what system you two were playing :-) under >>the "strong bids that sound weak" rule. Strangely enough, under the >>"Alertable" box in the "Natural Calls" row of the Alert Chart, it says >>"unusual strength, shape or limitations". It really isn't very hard to >>find, if the DIC bothered to look. > >It's easy enough to find, but what does it mean, other than "not >indentical to the way it's played by the person who wrote the >rule"? In many cases, that is obvious. Yes, it is a moveable feast. Yes, you are going to get into trouble sometimes, when you guess wrong. It is obvious to a more-than-casual reader of the Alert Procedure that "expected" is some version of Standard American or 2/1 GF; strong NTs, 5-card majors, the "basic set" of conventions you'd expect to see 95% of players in Flight C or higher at your tournament playing (plus a couple of anachronisms that are, I'm told, played consistently by "almost all" in locations other than mine. In this case, limit jump raises over overcalls (but not doubles) and 1m-2NT GF). Any TD should be a more-than-casual reader of the Alert Procedure, at least once. If you don't know what "sounds weak" or "sounds strong" in that system, you're going to have a great deal of trouble playing against your opponents, 95% of which are playing those treatments the "standard" way. And we're not alone in this one - the EBU have a similar regulation in their Orange Book ("5.2.1 You must alert a call if ...b) it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect") and the ABF ("3 Alertable Calls [...]All natural bids that convey a meaning that the opponents may not expect must be alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak...") I tried to read the DBF Orange Book, but the language issues were beyond my non-existent Danish :-). >-- I've heard the horror stories of TDs elsewhere who seem to be >certain that it means whatever they want it to. As have I. I have also heard the horror stories of TDs elsewhere who can't agree on what's alertable, and people getting ruled against for not alerting something the TD's colleague explicitly stated wasn't alertable yesterday. >A player should be >able to approach any TD and ask, "We have an agreement that bid X means >Y. Should we alert this?" and expect a definitive "yes" or "no" that >doesn't depend on which TD they happen to ask. Until that happens, the >ACBL alert procedure will remain dysfunctional. "I don't know if >you're supposed to, so I guess you'd better" just doesn't hack it. > Well, then, 80% of the world's Alert procedures are dysfunctional. As a fellow computer programmer, I understand the frustration with ambiguous - even if only ambiguous in a strictly logical sense - regulations. But we are a minority opinion (concentrated though we are on blml and rgb). In 99% of cases, at least - I'd probably say add another two nines - it is obvious. In the particular case of 2H-3H EHAA, it's IOTTCMO that the ACBL world, RONF players all, are going to assume that 3H is NF and blocking, and since it definately isn't, it needs to be Alerted. Singularly, the WBF alerting rules do not have a "natural, weak but sounds strong" alert. But their alert procedure is completely incompatible with the goals of the ACBL alert. It is unfortunate, as I said in my last, that 2NT, quasi-natural, NF, and invitational is also Alertable (because it denies 3-card support, because it could be off-shape, though ostensibly "natural"), and that some opponents are going to be surprised when the auction continues pass-pass (or even pass-3D-pass-pass). It proves to us only that even the ACBL-style Alert procedure isn't immune to the EBU 1NT-2C! problem. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 16:01:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4960pU19044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 16:00:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4960jt19006 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 16:00:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010509060026.RFXV2184114.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]>; Wed, 9 May 2001 18:00:26 +1200 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Marvin L. French" CC: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 6:00:26 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010509060026.RFXV2184114.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Marvin L. French" > Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 11:31:46 -0700 > To: "Bridge Laws" > Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling > More accurately: Damage exists if the OS gained an advantage in the > table score because of an irregularity, ("provided it is related to > the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the > offenders"--WBFLC, Lille meeting). I have a problem with this. Consider this hypothetical example. One side would have rested comfortably in 4s making 10 tricks however instead because of an infraction they get deflected into 4h an inferior contract but the same 10 tricks are available except if the opponents find a brilliancy. They do find this brilliancy. The brilliancy was not available in 4s - perhaps because it was right sided or the need to draw trumps created a different timing. By the Lille ruling (definition or whatever) this bad result is caused be the offenders good play so it is not damage. To my mind this is contrary to good sense. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 20:16:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49AFwa07962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:15:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f49AFot07958 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:15:51 +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 MAA03140; Wed, 9 May 2001 12:11:59 +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 MAA08141; Wed, 9 May 2001 12:15:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010509121906.007dedd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 12:19:06 +0200 To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz, "Marvin L. French" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling Cc: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: <20010509060026.RFXV2184114.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2. 8]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:00 9/05/01 +0000, Wayne wrote: >> >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 11:31:46 -0700 >> To: "Bridge Laws" >> Subject: Re: [BLML] link between MI and damage - another Belgian ruling >> More accurately: Damage exists if the OS gained an advantage in the >> table score because of an irregularity, ("provided it is related to >> the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the >> offenders"--WBFLC, Lille meeting). > >I have a problem with this. Consider this hypothetical example. > >One side would have rested comfortably in 4s making 10 tricks however instead because of an infraction they get deflected into 4h an inferior contract but the same 10 tricks are available except if the opponents find a brilliancy. They do find this brilliancy. The brilliancy was not available in 4s - perhaps because it was right sided or the need to draw trumps created a different timing. > >By the Lille ruling (definition or whatever) this bad result is caused be the offenders good play so it is not damage. To my mind this is contrary to good sense. AG : indeed. Assiming the link between the infraction and reaching 4H instead of 4S is established, the rules ask us to score the deal as it would have been without the 'deflection' (restoring equity). In this case, to score whatever would have been scored in 4S, and if there is *another* brilliancy that makes 4S down, assume it would not have been found. Any ruling to the contrary is IOTTMCO going against L12C2, L84 B, L84D and logic. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 20:24:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49AOk207982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:24:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f49AOdt07978 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:24:40 +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 MAA25843; Wed, 9 May 2001 12:24:15 +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 MAA14783; Wed, 9 May 2001 12:23:56 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010509122757.008202d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 12:27:57 +0200 To: Grant Sterling , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010508132958.007c5590@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010508133022.00b5a8c0@127.0.0.1> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:29 8/05/01 -0500, Grant Sterling wrote: >At 01:47 PM 5/8/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>It is blindingly obvious that one needs to know something about the >>(class of) player(s) involved to rule in John's examples, >>notwithstanding that the applicable laws he would rule under say >>nothing whatsoever about the class of player involved. >> > What I have not yet understood is _why_ anyone wants this 'dual >principle' setup. I can understand the Burn school, which wants to >ignore playing ability all the time for everyone and institute strict >and purely mechanical penalties wherever possible. I don't like that >approach in the slightest, but I understand it. I both understand and >agree with the approach that says that the TD [/AC] uses its best judgement >to arrive at an equitable solution, and so takes into account the class of >player involved in many situations. I do not understand why we would want >to rule claims the first way and UI/MI/PP cases the other. AG : the reason could be that the wording of L68C 'should' (see prolegomena for what 'should' means in the Laws) implies that a faulty claim is a lighter kind of infraction than using UI for example. It is quite reasonable (but by no means compulsory) to treat it with more sympathy than one would treat infractions (like MI or the use of UI). 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 May 9 20:32:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49AWe008007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:32:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f49AWXt08003 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:32:33 +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 MAA06557; Wed, 9 May 2001 12:28:43 +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 MAA20606; Wed, 9 May 2001 12:31:49 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010509123550.007dd400@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 12:35:50 +0200 To: Grant Sterling , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010508134745.007c7680@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010508105402.00a9f3d0@127.0.0.1> <3AF7ED59.4CA05F79@village.uunet.be> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:47 8/05/01 -0500, Grant Sterling wrote: > If football had as few fouls as bridge does, I would think it >would be improved by giving variable penalties based on the damage >caused by the foul. I.e., I would penalize a holding penalty that >did no harm with no yards, and one that cost a team a touchdown with >a touchdown. AG : in some sports, that is the way it is done. For example, in classical Rugby (15 players), a foul that clearly costs a try gets a penalty try, ie the try is scored. In Cricket, the lbw and 'handled the ball' dismissals are based on the same principles. And the 'last defender' principle in Soccer is an attempt in the same direction - I would feel it quite useful if bringing down the man that is to score would result in automatically scoring the goal. Bet the defenders would be less inclined to try ? It is what we do at Bridge, and it should be encouraged in all sports if at all feasible. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 20:42:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49Afqt09770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:41:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f49Afit09729 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:41:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-103-18.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.103.18]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f49AfMH21548; Wed, 9 May 2001 11:41:22 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001a01c0d874$9294b8c0$1267063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <004301c0d719$6d11a100$21b6f1c3@kooijman> <200105081428.KAA22236@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <003a01c0d7d6$bd5aedc0$8754063e@pacific> <200105090354.XAA08616@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 11:39:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 09 May 2001 04:54 Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) > On 8 May 2001 at 16:50, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > >Those who have read its minutes > >of 24 August 1998 and 11th January 2000 will > >know that in this matter it is exercised by the conflict > > That's a very - um - interesting verb to use > in this situation. Must be a Britishism that > didn't come over here - took me three tries > to guess what G. might have meant. > +=+ The dictionary I happen to have to hand gives as the sixth meaning of 'exercise': "to occupy the attentions of, esp. so as to worry or vex". ~ 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 May 9 20:48:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49AlkX11824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:47:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f49Alct11782 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:47:39 +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 MAA09221; Wed, 9 May 2001 12:43:48 +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 MAA01383; Wed, 9 May 2001 12:46:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010509125055.00824840@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 12:50:55 +0200 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 14 and 12 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 15:37 8/05/01 -0800, Gordon Bower wrote: > >Two little puzzlements presented themselves at the club last week. > >We had a situation where, after looking at their hands but before making a >call, a pair noticed one of them had 14 cards and one had 12. > >Puzzlement #1: > >This was the first time the hand was played. The "standard fix" is to just >redeal the board. Problem is --- > >L6D1 applies "before the auction begins"... but the auction period had >begun already for both sides (the two players with 13 each having counted >and sorted.) >L13 is a strange law. >It includes a whole paragraph (what to do if the player with an >incorect number has already called) that comes before L13A. Very few other >laws have such a section, and none that cover an entire case equal in >importance to the ones in 13A and 13B. Perhaps we a nod to ASCII we call >this first paragraph "L13@"? > >But the problem here is that neither L6D1 nor L13B seems to tell us what >is supposed to happen when a board is found wrong during the first time it >is played. In practice, here we award a redeal and no penalty aside from a >reminder to count cards. (There being no hand records, there's no such >thing as restoring the board to its original condition.) AG : the duplicity in the laws is necessary (but badly explained) to cover both the case you mention (warn the players and have them redeal) and the one where the board was preduplicated (treat as if the board had already been played). >--- > >The second curiosity, to me, concerns L24. > >Suppose I do know which of East's cards to transfer to West's hand to make >it right, and that I deem the information "inconsequential enough" to >allow the hand to proceed. > >One of West's cards was clearly held in a position where East could have >seen its face for some time! Do I apply L24 in addition to L13B now? Or >does the "proceed normally" of 13B take precedence? AG : a specific law (L13B) should take precedence on a general one (L24). But L24 raises another question : blml subscribers have reasoned, in several posts, on the fact that 'action' meant only 'declaration or card played' ; in the first sentence of L24, this is obviously not the case ! >For that matter - why not just USE L24 as THE penalty if one player has 14 >and his partner has 12, instead of assigning an ArtAS? The laws don't >currently allow this if the information is "consequential" but maybe they >should. It'd let the players obtain a bridge result, which is a Good >Thing. AG : yes, but the penalties are so harsh (and need to be, in some cases) that the result obtained will often have no resemblance to a bridge result. Since the infraction was obviously unintentional, applying a milder law is reasonable. General note to this post and the previous one, and many others by yours truly : my feeling is that any infraction that 'could have been done on purpose' should be treated with severity, while any breaching of the laws that will only happen fortuitously should be treated with more compassion. This principle is sometimes used in the Laws (like in Law 24, which distinguishes between cards led and cards that have fallen), but I feel it should be stated quite clearly. Comments welcome. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 20:57:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49AvAB15043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:57:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f49Auwt14985 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:56:59 +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 MAA11066; Wed, 9 May 2001 12:53:08 +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 MAA10068; Wed, 9 May 2001 12:56:14 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010509130016.00823a80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 13:00:16 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legality and hard feelings Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200105090015.RAA21392@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 17:15 8/05/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >(a) I think the best way to avoid making an enemy of a player like >that is not to play against him. This can be accomplished by suddenly >getting sick when he comes to your table. This might be easier than >it seems; there have been a few players in my bridge-playing career >the mere sight of whom was enough to make me sick. > >However, if this proves to be too difficult, the second method would >be, when he starts acting in this manner, to shoot him. It's hard to >make an enemy with a dead person. AG : or c) simply answering to his question 'what did you mean my bid meant' with 'I don't know. You know it better than me'. He won't call you (or think you are) incorrect, just plain dumb. But since this is the opinion of nearly every bridge player about nearly every other, nothing is lost. >(b) As for being left with a bad taste in your mouth, the best way to >avoid this is to remind yourself what a great service you have done >for the local bridge community by shooting this player. AG : you could also try spearmint chewing gum. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 9 23:19:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49DIBM11117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 23:18:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f49DI2t11112 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 23:18:04 +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 f49DHj689332 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 09:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010509074729.00b7fb90@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, 09 May 2001 09:19:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010508132958.007c5590@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010508133022.00b5a8c0@127.0.0.1> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:29 PM 5/8/01, Grant wrote: >At 01:47 PM 5/8/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >It is blindingly obvious that one needs to know something about the > >(class of) player(s) involved to rule in John's examples, > >notwithstanding that the applicable laws he would rule under say > >nothing whatsoever about the class of player involved. > > > >The current discussion, however, is about the laws in which the dreaded > >phrase is actually used, namely the laws governing claims. Nobody > >wants to ignore ability when ruling on UI, MI, or possible penalties > >for violating procedure. But many of us do want to treat a claim as a > >claim, not have one set of rules for claims made by experts and a > >different set of rules for claims made by less experienced > >players. The very fact that class of player is not mentioned in the > > What I have not yet understood is _why_ anyone wants this 'dual >principle' setup. I can understand the Burn school, which wants to >ignore playing ability all the time for everyone and institute strict >and purely mechanical penalties wherever possible. I don't like that >approach in the slightest, but I understand it. I both understand and >agree with the approach that says that the TD [/AC] uses its best >judgement >to arrive at an equitable solution, and so takes into account the class of >player involved in many situations. I do not understand why we would want >to rule claims the first way and UI/MI/PP cases the other. For the same reason we rule revokes the first way and UI/MI/PP cases the other. The latter require some judgment about ("the class of") the player involved, but not (at least directly) with respect to bridge skill. UI adjudications depend on the OS's methods, partnership experience and bidding tendencies (we must make determinations about LAs and demonstrable suggestions). MI adjudications depend on partnership methods and experience (most especially when "implicit agreements" are involved). PPs, being essentially disciplinary in nature, must vary based on the offender's past history of warnings or penalties for similar offenses. But we would prefer to rule mechanically rather than being forced to make such judgments in situations where it is reasonable to do so, like revokes. Some of us believe that bad claims should be treated that way as well. > But, then again, I obviously haven't ever figured out the problem >people have with what I _thought_ was the normal attitude towards claims. >I _thought_ that what the TD did in a disputed claim case was to look at >the situation, figure out what would have happened without the claim >[resolving close points against the claimer, but not assuming the claimer >has suddenly become inept], and arrive at an equitable result. That's the >method I have always employed, and it seems to work perfectly about 99.9% >of the time. That is the method players _in my limited experience_ seem >to expect. They do expect it. They expect -- correctly -- bad claim rulings to depend on purely subjective judgments by TDs or ACs as to the skill of the claimer. They expect -- not always correctly, but not entirely without some element of truth -- bias in these judgments. They expect that when they are in a dispute over a possibly faulty claim with a someone who is a buddy of the TD or AC chairman that they will be ruled against. They expect it, but they don't like it. > Now apparently this is just all wrong. Grattan tells me >that the TD never allows an irregularity to take place when resolving >a claim, even when the claimer has stated a line of play that includes >one and it would benefit the non-claimers to allow it. So, apparently, >being equitable and giving the benefit of the doubt to non-claimers >does not involve giving them the result they would have gotten had the >hand been played out, but instead may result in their getting a >sunstantially worse result than the one the TD thinks they would have >gotten absent a claim. Now Eric [and also Grattan] say that the claim >law should be written so that the claimer may get a very substantially >worse score than the TD thinks they would have gotten had the hand been >played out, becuase they want the law written so that anything counts as >a 'normal' line as long as it doesn't contain 'irrational' plays, and we >have seen all sorts of really horrid plays stated to be 'not irrational' >by TD's on this list. > What I don't understand in either of these cases is _how does >this make things better_? What _improvement_ in the game can we expect >by dealing with claims in these ways? What _problem_ does the ordinary >way of dealing with claims have, that requires these inequities as a >solution? The problem is the perception, and, to some extent, the reality, that Grant's "ordinary way" of dealing with claims, because it involves subjective judgments as to the claimer's level of ability, is subject to error and bias that would be eliminated if the same standards were used for everyone. At a local sectional this weekend my wife was playing 6NT and claimed at trick seven after taking the first six tricks: in hand with QJx/Kxx/-/x opposite -/AQxx/-/Axx; SQJ but not x winners, hearts not yet played, both opponents having followed to two rounds of clubs; she said, "I'll take all the tricks if either clubs or hearts are 3-3, otherwise you get the last trick." Opponents, having a blind spot, called the TD, arguing that if she tested both suits she'd be stuck in the dummy, and if she cashed her two spade tricks first she would have to guess which round suit to hold in dummy (hearts were 3-3, clubs 4-2). The TD (after consultation with the DIC, even) ruled routinely that she got all the tricks [side question: does she get them all if her LHO is 4-4 in hearts and clubs, so that her intended line would have fallen into an automatic squeeze?]. But she had to threaten to throw our opponents out of the tournament after they accused her of disregarding the merits of their case and ruling automatically in favor of my wife (who happens to be the president of the tournament's SO) under cover of a determination that she was "good enough" to play correctly, whereas they would have received no such benefit of the doubt had they made a similar claim. Some of us believe that eliminating subjective judgments, with their accompanying opportunity for and inevitable perception of bias in making rulings, wherever it is reasonable to do so, would be good for the game. > Now the first change in my claim-adjudicating worldview, the one >that screws the non-claimers out of their equity, at least has the >advantage of being so rare that it will likely have little effect. The >second change, though, is such that, if I thought victory was more >important than sportsmanship, I would dispute every single claim that >I ever had made against me again. Because if we allow in the idea that >'normal' includes all plays that a rank beginner would make at his worst >moments, then I can find you a 'normal' line in virtually every claim that >yields fewer tricks than the number claimed. When the claimers make proper and correct claim statements you will at best get nothing, and could eventually be penalized for repeatedly making frivolous director calls. When the claimers make improper or incorrect claim statements, they are committing an irregularity, and you *should* call the director every time (or, at least, cannot be faulted for doing so). > But, more seriously, no-one seems to understand why I think both >of these changes have the very serious problem of destroying the ordinary >view of claims. Again, my experience, which is very limited, says that >both players and TD's assume that in disputed claim cases you decide >what 'would have happened' had there been no claim, and resolve the >case given that picture. The "ordinary" (players', not TDs') view of claims is that "you" (the TD or AC) decide what you would like to happen and then make a determination that that is what "'would have happened'", thus resolving the case in favor of whichever party you are more favorably disposed towards. Given that, "destroying the oridnary view of claims" would, far from being a "very serious problem", actually be a very good thing. >I _hope_ you and Grattan both agree that the law >can be read this way without distortion--that a sensible person with no >hidden agenda could pick up the lawbook and think this is what it says. >I have no hidden agenda, I think this is what the law says, so if I'm >wrong I must be an idiot. So if we're going to do things the other >way, please write the new laws in such a way that they _explain clearly to >us the proceedure we are to use_, and please explain to us in this >forum why the game of bridge will be better that way. I agree that TFLB can be read Grant's way, and do not believe that Grant is an idiot. But the continuing discussion on BLML has clearly demonstrated that sensible people can read TFLB either way with roughly equal logical and grammatical merit. What Grattan and I believe is that (a) the law should be clarified so that its meaning is clear, and (b) that it should mean and say that faulty claim statements are resolved in a manner which does not require subjective judgments about players' level of ability. The latter, of course, is arguable, and I expect we will continue to argue about it at least until the next version of TFLB is published, but the former seems indisputable. > >laws under which it preforce must be taken into account lends a great > >deal of weight to the interpretation that says that the inclusion of > >the phrase in L69-71 tells us that we should not take it into account > >when ruling on faulty claims, i.e. that the class of player involved > >does *not* turn plays that are "careless or inferior for the class of > >player involved" (but might not be for lesser players) into > >"irrational" ones. > > So, in other words, the fact that the laws go out of their way >to talk about the class of player involved is evidence that the class >of player involved is irrelevant? Exactly. Before "class of player" was added (in 1987) it was routine to rule as Grant suggests, determining that if a line of play was obviously careless or inferior for an expert who had made a bad claim, it would be "irrational" for them to take that line. In historical context, the change looks a lot like a reminder that no matter how "careless or inferior for the class of player involved" a line might be, that doesn't preclude its being considered "'normal'", that lines are to be excluded as "irrational" only if they are, for lack of a better word, irrational. 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 May 10 00:47:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49El9b00192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 00:47:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f49Ekht00114 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 00:46:45 +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 f49EkPK99029 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 10:46:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010509093456.00a9f100@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, 09 May 2001 10:48:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010508134745.007c7680@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010508105402.00a9f3d0@127.0.0.1> <3AF7ED59.4CA05F79@village.uunet.be> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:47 PM 5/8/01, Grant wrote: >At 11:13 AM 5/8/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > >That would be true if the law required us to establish what most likely > >would have happened. But it doesn't. It merely requires us to > >enumerate all of the possible lines of play which are not > >"irrational". The fact that someone is an expert player means that > >what is careless or inferior for them would not be so for a lesser > >player, but does not necessarily mean that they are any more "rational" > >(by definition). > > That is one possible interpretation of the footnote. It isn't >the one that occurs to most people that I know when they read that >footnote. Well, if we've established only one thing in this discussion it is that the footnote is written in an unnecessarily ambiguous way (it could have said "exceptionally careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational" (as I would have it) or "careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved" (as Grant would have it)). So Grant may be right that most people, reading the law cold, would agree with his interpretation. But if one reads not only the current law, but its two or three previous versions in the context of how claims have historically been adjudicated, one would be likely to conclude that the intent of the revised wording was to decrease the extent to which subjectivity (and its natural consequence, widespread perception of bias, with occasional justification) were required to adjudicate these cases rather than to increase it. > >The standard is "includ[ing] play that would be careless or inferior, > >but not irrational". It's the same for everyone -- or should be. You > > _WHY_? Why should resolving Garozzo's claims works exactly >like resolving the claims of the worst club player? To avoid the perception and reality that claimers toward whom the TD/AC is favorably disposed get treated like Garozzo while claimers toward whom the TD/AC is unfavorably disposed get treated like the worst club player. And to avoid the burden placed on those TDs/ACs by requiring them to decide whether a player they've never seen before and know nothing about should be treated like Garozzo or like the worst club player. > >don't need a benchmark for level of ability. Beginners have nothing to > >do with the matter. > > > >If a defender in American football interferes with a pass, he is > >penalized for pass interference. Any defender receives the same > >penalty for the same foul. Nobody asks whether it would be > >"irrational" for him to fail to break up the pass had he not committed > > There are two radical differences here: > 1) Claiming is a part of the game of bridge that I think should >be _encouraged_. To increase the penalties for anyone who claims >_imperfectly_ will decrease the numbers of claims. OTOH, crashing into >pass receivers is something the football rulesmakers wanted to >_discourage_. >There is no danger that having penalties for it will somehow cause some >_good_ element of the game of football to be less common. I too believe that claims are good and should be encouraged. And I am not arguing that the penalty for imperfect claims should be increased. I am arguing that the penalty should be the same for Mr. Garozzo as for Mrs. Guggenheim. In practice, that would mean a greater penalty for Mr. Garozzo and a lesser penalty for Mrs. Guggenheim. > 2) In football, the penalties in every case [pass interference >being _almost_ an exception] have nothing to do with the expectation >of the play. For example, if a receiver breaks into the clear and >will very likely be able to catch a pass for a 50 yard gain, the defender >can grab his shirt and pull him down and get a penalty for holding--a >penalty of 10 yards. OTOH, the same holding violation may occur on a >running play, have _absolutely no effect on the play_, and still be >penalized with the very same 10 yards. All the penalties in football >are purely mechanical, and if this has the 'virtue' of treating everyone >equally it also has the handicap of being totally inequitable. I see no >reason why we shoudl think that a card game should be adjudicated by the >same standards as an athletic sport. Why shouldn't we? The IOC does. (Insert smilie here.) Seriously, though, I expect one would be rather hard-pressed to find a football fan who believes that the mechanical penalties of football are "inequitable" or that it would reduce the extent of bias in the officiating to make them depend on subjective determinations of the outcome of a play on which a foul has been committed absent the foul. Yet bridge players who believe that the claim laws are inequitable and subject to bias are a dime a dozen. > >the foul. The same applies to a bridge player who commits the "foul" > >of claiming without a proper statement. The notion that a player who > >commits an infraction should receive a lesser penalty than one who > >commits the same infraction in the same situation because an official > >(or, worse yet, a committee of fellow players) believes him to be a > >better player would be abhorent in any other game. IMO, it should be > >equally abhorent in ours. > > Well, except for cases like UI, and MI, and procedural penalties, >right? No. Cases involving UI, MI or PPs inherently require subjective judgments, but they do *not* require those judgments to be made about players' level of ability. For example, UI and MI cases often require subjective judgments as to how experienced a partnership is, but a regular, established partnership of dubs is likely to be judged more harshly than a pick-up partnership of experts. PP cases may require subjective judgments of the flagrancy of the offense or (less subjectively, but still somewhat so due to the lack of complete records) the offender's history of similar offenses, but, again, a dub might well wind up being treated more harshly than an expert. The problems I'm concerned about arise in those areas of the law where the experts are perforce treated less harshly than the dubs *just because they are experts*. > If football had as few fouls as bridge does, I would think it >would be improved by giving variable penalties based on the damage >caused by the foul. I.e., I would penalize a holding penalty that >did no harm with no yards, and one that cost a team a touchdown with >a touchdown. That doesn't work in football because there are 20 fouls >a game and because figuring out what might have happened is way too >hard--if Garozzo blocks his suits once a year, the best quarterback >in all of football overthrows a pass 5 times every single game. But >it works just fine in bridge 99.9% of the time. I strongly disagree, and would challenge Grant to find a single non-bridge-playing football fan who would agree with him that football "would be improved by giving variable penalties based on the damage caused by the foul". Can you imagine an official deciding that one team's running back was good enough to break a legal tackle by a defender who held him and score while the other team's running back wasn't? Or, if you can, that his doing so would fail to start a riot? The selfish bottom line: I wish never again to sit on an AC in which the majority believes that the proper ruling depends on how good some particular player is but nobody on the committe has any real idea how good he is. I don't see how anyone can argue that this is somehow good for the game. 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 May 10 01:18:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49FIZS09282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 01:18:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f49FIOt09230 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 01:18:25 +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 f49FI9c36767 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 11:18:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010509111837.00b62340@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, 09 May 2001 11:20:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: [BLML] Abbreviations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Both Michael and Alain wrote: IOTTMCO ?? 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 May 10 02:04:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49G3gL23198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 02:03:42 +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 f49G3Xt23153 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 02:03:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from fermat.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.1.37]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f49G36t18995; Wed, 9 May 2001 17:03:06 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f49G35P17512; Wed, 9 May 2001 17:03:05 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 09 May 2001 16:03:05 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 RAA04584; Wed, 9 May 2001 17:03:05 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA24492; Wed, 9 May 2001 17:03:04 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 17:03:04 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200105091603.RAA24492@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Abbreviations Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Subject: [BLML] Abbreviations > > Both Michael and Alain wrote: > > IOTTMCO > > ?? A quick web search reveals "IOTTMCO [Immediately Obvious To The Most Casual Observer]" 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 May 10 02:17:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49GHEd26981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 02:17:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com (juicer38.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f49GH8t26958 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 02:17:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.54]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GD2TGX00.0YQ for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 02:22:09 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-76.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.76]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Darwinian-MailRouter V2.9c 11/9093673); 10 May 2001 02:16:49 Message-ID: <008d01c0d8a3$2af45b60$4ce136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Legality and hard feelings Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:14:47 +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 Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Adam Beneschan wrote: >>(b) As for being left with a bad taste in your mouth, the best >>way to avoid this is to remind yourself what a great service you >>have done for the local bridge community by shooting this player. > >AG : you could also try spearmint chewing gum. Unless you're playing bridge in Singapore, where both chewing gum and murder are illegal. I wouldn't worry too much about the loud opponent making an enemy of me. I think that reminding yourself that he has the problem (his temper), and if the Director won't do anything about it, then all you can and should do is try to forget the whole incident and do your best to enjoy the rest of the game. Having escaped from that table as soon as play finishes in order to have a soothing cup of coffee or tea, or course. 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 May 10 04:00:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49HxWp26531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 03:59:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f49HxNt26484 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 03:59:24 +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 MAA28974 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 12:59:14 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010509125719.007c2480@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 12:57:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010509122757.008202d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010508132958.007c5590@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010508133022.00b5a8c0@127.0.0.1> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:27 PM 5/9/2001 +0200, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 13:29 8/05/01 -0500, Grant Sterling wrote: >> What I have not yet understood is _why_ anyone wants this 'dual >>principle' setup. I can understand the Burn school, which wants to >>ignore playing ability all the time for everyone and institute strict >>and purely mechanical penalties wherever possible. I don't like that >>approach in the slightest, but I understand it. I both understand and >>agree with the approach that says that the TD [/AC] uses its best judgement >>to arrive at an equitable solution, and so takes into account the class of >>player involved in many situations. I do not understand why we would want >>to rule claims the first way and UI/MI/PP cases the other. > > >AG : the reason could be that the wording of L68C 'should' (see prolegomena >for what 'should' means in the Laws) implies that a faulty claim is a >lighter kind of infraction than using UI for example. It is quite >reasonable (but by no means compulsory) to treat it with more sympathy than >one would treat infractions (like MI or the use of UI). I am perfectly happy with any system that proposes to deal with faulty claims _more lightly_ than with use of UI. I am not happy with a system that would deal with them more harshly. > A. Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 10 04:48:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49IlkY10586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 04:47:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f49IlGt10506 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 04:47:17 +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 NAA08204 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 13:47:09 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010509134512.007c61a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 13:45:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010509074729.00b7fb90@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20010508132958.007c5590@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010508133022.00b5a8c0@127.0.0.1> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:19 AM 5/9/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:29 PM 5/8/01, Grant wrote: > >>At 01:47 PM 5/8/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >> What I have not yet understood is _why_ anyone wants this 'dual >>principle' setup. I can understand the Burn school, which wants to >>ignore playing ability all the time for everyone and institute strict >>and purely mechanical penalties wherever possible. I don't like that >>approach in the slightest, but I understand it. I both understand and >>agree with the approach that says that the TD [/AC] uses its best >>judgement >>to arrive at an equitable solution, and so takes into account the class of >>player involved in many situations. I do not understand why we would want >>to rule claims the first way and UI/MI/PP cases the other. > >For the same reason we rule revokes the first way and UI/MI/PP cases >the other. The latter require some judgment about ("the class of") the >player involved, but not (at least directly) with respect to bridge >skill. UI adjudications depend on the OS's methods, partnership >experience and bidding tendencies (we must make determinations about >LAs and demonstrable suggestions). MI adjudications depend on >partnership methods and experience (most especially when "implicit As the laws are currently written, we do. But why aren't you fighting this? Why not simply say that "whenever there's MI the side giving MI shall be penalized 500 points". Are something similar. No need to do all this difficult judgmental work. If mechanical procedures are preferable, then why not go for the Burn school method of instituting them for everything? >agreements" are involved). PPs, being essentially disciplinary in >nature, must vary based on the offender's past history of warnings or >penalties for similar offenses. But we would prefer to rule >mechanically rather than being forced to make such judgments in >situations where it is reasonable to do so, like revokes. Some of us >believe that bad claims should be treated that way as well. I prefer to rule with judgment rather than be forced to rule mechanically, except in cases where the infraction is so common and deleterious that mechanical rules make the game better. >> But, then again, I obviously haven't ever figured out the problem >>people have with what I _thought_ was the normal attitude towards claims. >>I _thought_ that what the TD did in a disputed claim case was to look at >>the situation, figure out what would have happened without the claim >>[resolving close points against the claimer, but not assuming the claimer >>has suddenly become inept], and arrive at an equitable result. That's the >>method I have always employed, and it seems to work perfectly about 99.9% >>of the time. That is the method players _in my limited experience_ seem >>to expect. > >They do expect it. They expect -- correctly -- bad claim rulings to >depend on purely subjective judgments by TDs or ACs as to the skill of >the claimer. They expect -- not always correctly, but not entirely >without some element of truth -- bias in these judgments. They expect >that when they are in a dispute over a possibly faulty claim with a >someone who is a buddy of the TD or AC chairman that they will be ruled >against. They expect it, but they don't like it. OK, there's the problem. Your argument is that most or at least many players expect to be ruled against on grounds of personal favoritism, and so a mechanical penalty will make players feel better. That is an argument I can understand. I don't agree with it for two reasons: 1) I just haven't encountered it. Again, my experience is so limited that this may be simply a result of my own lack of familiarity. 2) I don't think the proposed rules change would solve it. Is it 'irrational' for me to play suits from the bottom up? For me to run all my trumps and then play my side suits? For me to block suits or crash honors? To lose track of my entries? Knowledgeable TDs on this list have answered both 'yes' and 'no' to every single one of these problems. Unless we re-write the laws so that every possible contingency is explicitly dealt with, TDs will have to make those judgments, and some players will think that they make them based on who the players are rather than the merits of the cases. 3) I think that players will be far more upset the first time they make an imperfect claim [see more on this below] and receive a catastrophic ruling, than they are upset when they dispute an imperfect claim and the TD lets it go through. >At a local sectional this weekend my wife was playing 6NT and claimed >at trick seven after taking the first six tricks: in hand with >QJx/Kxx/-/x opposite -/AQxx/-/Axx; SQJ but not x winners, hearts not >yet played, both opponents having followed to two rounds of clubs; she >said, "I'll take all the tricks if either clubs or hearts are 3-3, >otherwise you get the last trick." Opponents, having a blind spot, >called the TD, arguing that if she tested both suits she'd be stuck in >the dummy, and if she cashed her two spade tricks first she would have >to guess which round suit to hold in dummy (hearts were 3-3, clubs >4-2). The TD (after consultation with the DIC, even) ruled routinely >that she got all the tricks [side question: does she get them all if >her LHO is 4-4 in hearts and clubs, so that her intended line would >have fallen into an automatic squeeze?]. But she had to threaten to >throw our opponents out of the tournament after they accused her of >disregarding the merits of their case and ruling automatically in favor >of my wife (who happens to be the president of the tournament's SO) >under cover of a determination that she was "good enough" to play >correctly, whereas they would have received no such benefit of the >doubt had they made a similar claim. In your case, I would have ruled that it would be irrational to play that hand in such a way as to make fewer tricks. Do you think that if irrationality irrespective of ability were made the standard of claim adjudication, these particular opponents would have thought my ruling was impartial? I think not--they would have been just as convinced that they had been screwed, because they're clearly the sort of people who think that whenever possible. And, again, do you think they would feel differently if it had been a UI or MI judgment? If not, then don't we have to overall the UI and MI rules, too? Why not be an out-and-out Burnian? Here's my case: I have KTxx in hearts, no other points, and 2-4-5-2 distribution. My partner opens 1H, RHO doubles, and I bid 2H. We end up getting a good score when LHO plays me for having more points. Opponents call the Director, complaining that I have psyched. [That psychic is legal is irrelevant in their minds.] The TD says that with this bidding 2H by me isn't even a psyche. My LHO remained absolutely convinced that I had cheated and that the TD simply refused to hear the case because she was biased in my favor. My point is that people who are disposed to think that the TD is biased will think so regardless of what law is at issue or how the law is written. >Some of us believe that eliminating subjective judgments, with their >accompanying opportunity for and inevitable perception of bias in >making rulings, wherever it is reasonable to do so, would be good for >the game. But, again, I can understand that idea, but it leads to full- fledged Burnianism. Call for an end to judgment in _all_ rulings, not just for the elimination of 'class of player' from the claim laws. And demand the elimination of 'irrational', too, because that requires judgment to administer. [And get rid of L70c2.] Just allow those who dispute claims to play the cards for claimer in any legal way. >> Now the first change in my claim-adjudicating worldview, the one >>that screws the non-claimers out of their equity, at least has the >>advantage of being so rare that it will likely have little effect. The >>second change, though, is such that, if I thought victory was more >>important than sportsmanship, I would dispute every single claim that >>I ever had made against me again. Because if we allow in the idea that >>'normal' includes all plays that a rank beginner would make at his worst >>moments, then I can find you a 'normal' line in virtually every claim that >>yields fewer tricks than the number claimed. > >When the claimers make proper and correct claim statements you will at >best get nothing, and could eventually be penalized for repeatedly >making frivolous director calls. When the claimers make improper or >incorrect claim statements, they are committing an irregularity, and >you *should* call the director every time (or, at least, cannot be >faulted for doing so). I see a perfect claim statement about once a month. Maybe. Virtually all claim statements are incomplete, for the obvious reason that completing them would be a waste of time and an insult to the opponents' intelligence. I have KQJx of a suit in dummy, and Ax in my hand, and with all trumps out I claim the last 4 tricks. I am the most stringent claimer I know but _even I_ don't make a claim statement in these cases. But wait! I'm pretty sure Garozzo played a small one to the King in this situation once when he was a baby! I know Mrs. Guggenheim once had a brain fade and pulled out her losing side suit deuce rather than play her 4 top winners at all. So my opponents, at least by the version of the 'irrational' standard some seem to hold, are entitled to 4 tricks, or at the very least 2. Because we deal on this list only with difficult claims, people sometimes seem to forget that most 'bad claims' are entirely routine affairs that don't upset anybody. They have all the winners and don't explicitly state the order they will play them in. Occasionally they forget a trump, or forget that a weird distribution would wreck their play, or forget that a sidesuit card is not high. To tell them on such occasions that they will not only be losing the trick that results from their mistake, but will also be deemed to have played out the rest of the hand as if they were drooling morons, will not improve the attitude of players of the game of bridge. Yes, in a perfect world everyone claims perfectly, and we don't even need a law for disputed claims. In the real world virtually no-one claims perfectly, and penalizing imperfect claims will not increase the number of perfect claims--it will scare most people away from claiming at all. >> But, more seriously, no-one seems to understand why I think both >>of these changes have the very serious problem of destroying the ordinary >>view of claims. Again, my experience, which is very limited, says that >>both players and TD's assume that in disputed claim cases you decide >>what 'would have happened' had there been no claim, and resolve the >>case given that picture. > >The "ordinary" (players', not TDs') view of claims is that "you" (the >TD or AC) decide what you would like to happen and then make a >determination that that is what "'would have happened'", thus resolving >the case in favor of whichever party you are more favorably disposed >towards. Given that, "destroying the oridnary view of claims" would, >far from being a "very serious problem", actually be a very good thing. OK, again, if your perception is correct then this may be a good thing to change. Even then, as I have said, I don't think it will work. >>I _hope_ you and Grattan both agree that the law >>can be read this way without distortion--that a sensible person with no >>hidden agenda could pick up the lawbook and think this is what it says. >>I have no hidden agenda, I think this is what the law says, so if I'm >>wrong I must be an idiot. So if we're going to do things the other >>way, please write the new laws in such a way that they _explain clearly to >>us the proceedure we are to use_, and please explain to us in this >>forum why the game of bridge will be better that way. > >I agree that TFLB can be read Grant's way, and do not believe that >Grant is an idiot. But the continuing discussion on BLML has clearly >demonstrated that sensible people can read TFLB either way with roughly >equal logical and grammatical merit. What Grattan and I believe is This I fully grant. That the lawbook is unclear seems obvious. I would even go further and say that no mere tinkering with the words or their order will fix that--the change will have to be radical. >that (a) the law should be clarified so that its meaning is clear, and >(b) that it should mean and say that faulty claim statements are >resolved in a manner which does not require subjective judgments about >players' level of ability. The latter, of course, is arguable, and I >expect we will continue to argue about it at least until the next >version of TFLB is published, but the former seems indisputable. I do, indeed, agree with the former. And I think radical surgery is required to accomplish it. [Slightly more radical if we accept 'b' than if we accept my reading, perhaps, but radical either way if we really want to be clear.] >> So, in other words, the fact that the laws go out of their way >>to talk about the class of player involved is evidence that the class >>of player involved is irrelevant? > >Exactly. Before "class of player" was added (in 1987) it was routine >to rule as Grant suggests, determining that if a line of play was >obviously careless or inferior for an expert who had made a bad claim, >it would be "irrational" for them to take that line. In historical >context, the change looks a lot like a reminder that no matter how >"careless or inferior for the class of player involved" a line might >be, that doesn't preclude its being considered "'normal'", that lines >are to be excluded as "irrational" only if they are, for lack of a >better word, irrational. If that was the lawmakers' intention, I can only say they have led me to the opposite conclusion from the one they intended me to draw. >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 10 05:15:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49JAdu16691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 05:10:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f49JA6t16610 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 05:10:08 +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 OAA02931 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 14:09:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010509140801.007c4100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:08:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010509093456.00a9f100@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20010508134745.007c7680@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010508105402.00a9f3d0@127.0.0.1> <3AF7ED59.4CA05F79@village.uunet.be> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:48 AM 5/9/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:47 PM 5/8/01, Grant wrote: > >>At 11:13 AM 5/8/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >> >If a defender in American football interferes with a pass, he is >> >penalized for pass interference. Any defender receives the same >> >penalty for the same foul. Nobody asks whether it would be >> >"irrational" for him to fail to break up the pass had he not committed >> >> There are two radical differences here: >> 1) Claiming is a part of the game of bridge that I think should >>be _encouraged_. To increase the penalties for anyone who claims >>_imperfectly_ will decrease the numbers of claims. OTOH, crashing into >>pass receivers is something the football rulesmakers wanted to >>_discourage_. >>There is no danger that having penalties for it will somehow cause some >>_good_ element of the game of football to be less common. > >I too believe that claims are good and should be encouraged. And I am >not arguing that the penalty for imperfect claims should be >increased. I am arguing that the penalty should be the same for Mr. >Garozzo as for Mrs. Guggenheim. In practice, that would mean a greater >penalty for Mr. Garozzo and a lesser penalty for Mrs. Guggenheim. That isn't what your proposal would lead to. I have yet to see a TD impose an _irrational_ line on Mrs. G. Ergo, in practice, what you are arguing for will lead to little change in the life of Mr. Garozzo [who probably makes fewer imperfect claims, and whose opponents probably seldom call a TD to claim that he might have crashed his honors], very little change in the life of Mrs. Guggenheim [who hardly ever claims unless he hand contains all trump honors, and who is probably routinely ruled against whenever she claims imperfectly anyway], and enormously harsher penalties for the borderline players who are getting over their innate fear of claiming but don't have the skills to make perfect claims. The 'irrational' standard, particularly as it has been enunciated by some on this list [not necessarily including you, Eric], is extraordinarily harsh, and if it were ever to be officially imposed and actually carried into practice [two very different things] it would lead to enormously harsher penalties. I think that's very bad. >> 2) In football, the penalties in every case [pass interference >>being _almost_ an exception] have nothing to do with the expectation >>of the play. For example, if a receiver breaks into the clear and >>will very likely be able to catch a pass for a 50 yard gain, the defender >>can grab his shirt and pull him down and get a penalty for holding--a >>penalty of 10 yards. OTOH, the same holding violation may occur on a >>running play, have _absolutely no effect on the play_, and still be >>penalized with the very same 10 yards. All the penalties in football >>are purely mechanical, and if this has the 'virtue' of treating everyone >>equally it also has the handicap of being totally inequitable. I see no >>reason why we shoudl think that a card game should be adjudicated by the >>same standards as an athletic sport. > >Why shouldn't we? The IOC does. (Insert smilie here.) Perhaps we need some version of Bridge biathlon--perhaps two-man rowing followed by 50 hands against GIB. >Seriously, though, I expect one would be rather hard-pressed to find a >football fan who believes that the mechanical penalties of football are >"inequitable" or that it would reduce the extent of bias in the >officiating to make them depend on subjective determinations of the >outcome of a play on which a foul has been committed absent the >foul. Yet bridge players who believe that the claim laws are >inequitable and subject to bias are a dime a dozen. Well, I know tons of football fans who think that referees routinely give their mechanical penalties based on the skill of player involved. In NBA basketball, most fans believe that a superstar won't be penalized for doing the same things a rookie will get called for. But I already said why the former won't work. You can't have judgment calls in football because football is a 'quantum' sport and bridge is a 'deterministic' "sport". The best passers in football _routinely_ make several bad passes every single game. Handing the ball to Joe Runningback may yield a loss of yards or a 90-yard gain in what look like indistinguishable situations. So if there's a penalty, it would be impossible to make even a fairly good guess what would have happened without the penalty a fair portion of the time. [Sometimes it is obvious that the penalty was irrelevant.] OTOH, with most bridge hands there is a definate right way to play them, and given the situation I can _usually_ say with some accuracy how many tricks would have resulted had the hand been played out. And there are far more penalties in football than in bridge. >> >the foul. The same applies to a bridge player who commits the "foul" >> >of claiming without a proper statement. The notion that a player who >> >commits an infraction should receive a lesser penalty than one who >> >commits the same infraction in the same situation because an official >> >(or, worse yet, a committee of fellow players) believes him to be a >> >better player would be abhorent in any other game. IMO, it should be >> >equally abhorent in ours. >> >> Well, except for cases like UI, and MI, and procedural penalties, >>right? > >No. Cases involving UI, MI or PPs inherently require subjective >judgments, but they do *not* require those judgments to be made about >players' level of ability. For example, UI and MI cases often require Am I mistaken, or do not AC's routinely consider what are LA's based on a player's imagined 'peers'? >The selfish bottom line: I wish never again to sit on an AC in which >the majority believes that the proper ruling depends on how good some >particular player is but nobody on the committe has any real idea how >good he is. I don't see how anyone can argue that this is somehow good >for the game. I don't want to sit on an AC in which the proper ruling will be "We know with virtually 100% certainty that you would have made 12 tricks on this hand, Mr. Jones, but because Mrs. Guggenheim sometimes takes a finesse when she holds 11 cards to the AK, we have to rule that you will take a first round finesse and go down 12. We know that you have never done anything like this in the last 30 years you've played bridge, but that's irrelevant to deciding your claim." I don't see how anyone can argue that _this_ is somehow good for the game. >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 Thu May 10 05:31:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49JVTN22604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 05:31:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f49JVLt22569 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 05:31:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f49JUoP02120 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 May 2001 15:30:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200105091930.f49JUoP02120@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 15:30:50 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200105090327.XAA08114@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> from "Michael Farebrother" at May 08, 2001 11:27:27 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Michael Farebrother > Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:27:27 -0400 > > >Well, many club players who don't have access to the web and don't > >travel to tournaments, find it harder to get a hold of the 16-page > >document and often ask the directors what is and isn't alertable. > > True, but any club that doesn't have the 1 large page Alert chart > available to their members (or better yet, posted somewhere), are > mistreating those members. > In many of the clubs around here, it is posted, but after several months, it gets covered up by flyers for tournaments, info for novices, etc...or players look at it and a year later have forgotten it and don't take the time to look at it again... For many people, bridge is a recreation and not the passion that it is for others. Those who treat it as a recreation and don't remember all the laws or all the alerts, or even all the bids in their card can feel truly alienated by situations where they are punished for something as simple as not alerting a questionable bid that they weren't sure about. This is a good way to force casual players out of the game and have many feel that unless you take the game so seriously that you spend all your time studying the rules and the changes and read all the WBF and ACBL minutes and addenda, that you can be punished for infractions you hadn't even known about. Also, there are many like me who play with many people (I rarely play more than one day with the same partner and I have regular partnerships with several dozen players/friends all with different systems. I try very hard to alert and alert in case I'm not certain, but still, what happens if I miss something? Like when I play EHAA with Eric or his wife (once in a blue moon) and forget an alert? > Having said that, you raise a valid point. And I have sympathy for > those people (witness my minirant earlier today about ensuring that > pronouncements from the WBFLC get to the bridge players in the various > zones). It is, also, a point I have not before heard, and the response > to Eric to which you raise this point is completely unusable as a > rebuttal of it. > [...] > >So, are you saying, that club players who don't have access to an > >alert table can expect to be punished for not knowing it? Another > >problem is that the directors often give them different opinions > >on whether something is alertable or not. > > > That is difficult to deal with, because there are many directors who > can't be bothered to read the Alert Procedure themselves, never mind > have one available to check. So they "gut-check" it, as they do many > book rulings, and this is part of the reason that ACBL TDs (thankfully, > less frequently at tournament level) are considered to be random and > untrustworthy. > I carry one in my brief case and refer back to it...but sometimes some things are not included. I recently had a precision pair who was playing an opening of 2NT showed 0-11 and 5-5 or better in the minors. So, they knew it was alertable, but the question arose from the opponents, of (1) was it pre-alertable and (2) was a recommended defense required for it. I said that all players should have a defense to any conventional bid in their repertoire for the opponents. The opponents would have wanted a pre-alert to discuss a defensive system. The vague descriptions of pre-alertable material was not helpful in this situation. I do read it and sometimes it still isn't descriptive enough. And I have to tell players what to do...and if I say that it isn't (after all, is this that different from an unusual NT? And many Precision players do play this) but the next TD thinks it is unusual enough, what are players to do? > I will admit my bias - I am a person to whom remembering large amounts > of semi-randomly-organized material is easy, and in fact interesting. I > am also a person who feels no shame in saying "I don't know. But I know > where to look it up." I realize that this is a talent shared by few; > which is why I don't expect players to know the Alert Procedure. I do > expect TDs, however, to know where they can look up the information, quickly, > if they do not know it (and through repetition, shouldn't have to look > it up 90% of the time). > I am much the same way. I try to keep current and try to pay attention but I think that there are some holes in the Alert Procedure for some systems or systemic bids and that it can happen that two TD's will interpret it differently. > >Well, I have to say that I know many people who incorrectly fill out > >their convention card and don't get punished for it. Or use the > >older invalid convention cards because they've been playing for > >years with this partner...or have changed something in their system > >and didn't update their CC, etc, etc. I often find that if I'm not > >sure, I check the card and sometimes will ask as well. The point of > >the game is to play bridge and not to win by legalese. If I can > >protect myself, I do. And that means sometimes asking about agreements > >in addition to looking them up. Just my perspective. I think if more > >people tried to do the "right" thing beforehand instead of the legal > >thing and then bellow for the director afterwards and seek redress > >then it would be a friendlier game. > > > Well, yes. But do look at what happened in my case. I assume you > don't look and ask in order to ensure that your partner knows what's > going on, or to say "look, pd, I'm really surprised they've opened > hearts, because I have a stack". > > And I hope you don't get too upset when you look, and > ask something that is clearly on their card, and the UI given matches > your hand, and partner uses the UI successfully, and they call the TD, > and she adjusts the score. > Hmmm...I don't do that. I try to only look and ask when appropriate. More typically, I'll look at the card and ask the opponents, is this the correct CC or is this the correct information? And leave it at that. I try very hard to avoid UI situations where possible. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 10 06:18:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49KHg006110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 06:17:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f49KHZt06105 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 06:17:36 +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 PAA09426 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 15:17:28 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010509151227.007b1810@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:12:27 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <200105082229.SAA27205@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I'm going to try again to explain the distinction that is apparently causing my problems. Please let me know if I have just misunderstood something completely. At 06:29 PM 5/8/2001 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> The question is what is >> the Director to do when there is an objection to a >> claim, there is an irregularity embodied in the >> statement of clarification, Law 70 gives him no >> powers to apply penalties that would apply in play, >... > >Apologies for coming in late, but it isn't obvious to me that L70 does >not give such powers. "As equitably as possible" might or might not be >read to include penalties, at least for some irregularities. Thank you. >Of course there are other laws that apply to specific kinds of >irregularities. > >> and any conceptual play that he substitutes must be >> 'normal' > >yes Fine. I agree, yes. But I always thought claim resolution was a two step process: 1) If declarer's stated line of play yields fewer tricks than he claimed, give him the number of tricks his line of play makes, unless you think claimer would have seen in time that his line of play couldn't work. [I.e., if he claims 10 tricks but his line only yields 9, give him 9.] 2) If his line of play can't be followed or would have been seen to break down, calculate the alternative normal lines of play from the point of the break and award the tricks of the worst such line. Am I wrong? Does step one not really take place as I thought? PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE CLAIMS: Contract is 3 NT. Opening lead is a small diamond. AKxx QJx KQJ xxxx xx AKx Kxxx Axx CASE ONE: Declarer sees the diamond lead and immediately says "I'll take my 9 top tricks in spades, diamonds and clubs and give you the rest". Now, in fact, he only has 8 top tricks--he has miscounted. The defense objects. I always assumed that in cases like this we took the claimer's original line of play, as stated, and evaluated it. In this case, it yields 8 tricks, and so 8 tricks we award. Down 1. Only if, in the judgment of the TD, declarer would in fact have awoken to the miscounting before he played his second diamond stopper, do we award some other number of tricks than this. In other words, I always thought that we check the number of tricks that declarer's _actually stated line of play_ would yield, and award that number, _before_ we even considered alternative lines. On this hand, there is no need to consider alternative lines at all, unless the TD thinks declarer would have seen that his actually stated line is irrational soon enough. So, before going on, tell me how many tricks you award. I award only 8, unless I am convinced that declarer would wake up, in which case.... Suppose you rule that declarer's line has broken down, and we must consider alternative lines. Since the play of this hand is so obvious that _even the worst player in my club would make 10 tricks_, I would hold that any line making fewer than 10 tricks is irrational. So I award 10 tricks if I think the original line broke down, 8 if I think it didn't. Now Grattan and Kojak seem to be saying that if claimer's stated line of play doesn't make the number of tricks he claimed, then we _immediately_ calculate alternative normal lines of play, ignoring his claim statement. Since in this case claimer's line yields 8 and he claimed 9, we proceed immediately to the alternative normal lines. The worst normal line makes 10 tricks, because declarer's actual line is not normal. Ergo, if the defense realizes that he had only 8 top tricks and protests his claim of 9, the TD must award 10! Now suppose that you do not agree with me when I say that declarer's line of play is irrational. Now you award declarer only 8 tricks, since playing all the top honors before playing a heart yields only 8. Now consider CASE TWO: Exactly the same as case one, except this time declarer says "I'll win the A of diamonds. I'll lead to the hearts. If you duck two rounds of hearts, I'll run my top winners and give you the rest. If you win the ace on the first or second round, I'll win the return and cash my top winners and give you the rest. Making 11 tricks." Now, in fact, this line of play only yields 10 tricks--declarer has miscounted again. If, whenever a line yields fewer tricks than claimed, we immediately proceed to 'normal lines', and if playing all the top honors before testing hearts is normal, then we must award this declarer 8 tricks, right? Will anyone tell me that it would be _equity_ to give this declarer 8 tricks on this hand, given that claim statement? So I think that the view that says that 'whenever a line makes fewer tricks than claimed we immediately consider all and only normal lines of play' must yield a highly inequitable result on either case 1 or case 2. If playing top honors first is 'normal', then we get case 1 right but case 2 badly wrong. If playing top honors first is not normal, then we get case 2 right but case 1 badly wrong. {_Unless_ 'normal' is really indexed to the class of player involved, and we can argue that it would be 'normal' for player one to cash his honors and not for player two.} What have I misunderstood? Or do we really give the same number of tricks in Case One and Case Two, even though what appears to be equity is radically different? >> (an illegal play not being 'normal'). > >But this isn't so clear. As others have said, in many cases the >NOS has the explicit right to accept an illegal play if it is to >their advantage. > >Of course we all agree that an illegal play that benefits the claimer >will not be allowed. (Don't we?) I am willing to agree that illegal plays are never normal. (Otherwise, whenever we consider alternative lines we'll have to include lines where the claimer made an illegal play, and no-one wants that!) But I don't think that means we disallow them when they are part of the _stated line_. I only think we disallow them when they are part of an alternative line we are imagining. Since I don't think all disputed claims involve considering alternative lines at all, I think illegal plays can be part of a claim when it is to claimer's disadvantage. >> At 09:22 PM 4/30/2001 +0200, Anton Witzen wrote: >> >you will be ashtonished ro read in the answer: > >> >By the claim, the revoke becomes established. South has to give 2 tricks to EW >> >L63A3, 64A1 > >> From: Grant Sterling >> It is compatible with the Laws as written, > >Ummm, I don't think so. There are L44C and 64B3, as mentioned at length >in another thread. And I do not think those rules apply to the question of whether revokes in the stated line of play can be penalized, since I don't think that the laws AS WRITTEN forbid illegal lines of play in a claim, and I don't think that the 'as if' tricks are played 'as if' the cards are faced on the table. In any case, there's always L64C, even if you do think L63b3 applies. >> and with common TD practice. > >This, alas, I believe. > >There seems to be widespread understanding of what happens when a claim >statement includes an illegal play. Either we need an "accepted >jurisprudence" or clearer guidelines in the next Laws version. Or both. > >Whatever guidance is given should also address the situation of an >illegal play that takes place immediately prior to a claim. When >does the NOS still have a right to accept or waive penalties? I agree. We need guidance, _official_ guidance, either as part of the laws or as a clearly and prominently promulgated proclamation of interpretation that will filter down even to small tournaments and clubs. Failing that, I think we should continue with business as usual. 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 May 10 06:42:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49KgdF06286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 06:42:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f49KgVt06282 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 06:42:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-51-65.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.51.65]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f49KfWH10970; Wed, 9 May 2001 21:41:33 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000c01c0d8c8$6c3a6900$41337bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" , Cc: References: <200105091603.RAA24492@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Abbreviations Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 19:14:33 +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: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Abbreviations > > From: Eric Landau > > Subject: [BLML] Abbreviations > > > > Both Michael and Alain wrote: > > > > IOTTMCO > > > > ?? > > A quick web search reveals > "IOTTMCO [Immediately Obvious To The Most Casual Observer]" > > Robin > +=+ Just so. :-) +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 10 07:12:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f49LCXJ15384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 07:12:33 +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 ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f49LCMt15337 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 07:12:23 +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 OAA06520; Wed, 9 May 2001 14:12:03 -0700 Message-Id: <200105092112.OAA06520@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 "Wed, 09 May 2001 15:12:27 CDT." <3.0.6.32.20010509151227.007b1810@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:12:02 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > Am I wrong? Does step one not really take place as I thought? > PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE CLAIMS: > Contract is 3 NT. Opening lead is a small diamond. > AKxx QJx > KQJ xxxx > xx AKx > Kxxx Axx > > CASE ONE: > Declarer sees the diamond lead and immediately says "I'll > take my 9 top tricks in spades, diamonds and clubs and give you the > rest". Now, in fact, he only has 8 top tricks--he has miscounted. > The defense objects. > I always assumed that in cases like this we took the claimer's > original line of play, as stated, and evaluated it. In this case, it > yields 8 tricks, and so 8 tricks we award. Down 1. Only if, in the > judgment of the TD, declarer would in fact have awoken to the miscounting > before he played his second diamond stopper, do we award some other number > of tricks than this. To be precise, there are some other cases where we would award more than 8 tricks. For example, suppose a defender has xxxx Axx QJT QJT. Now, we'll assume that declarer will take his eight top tricks and then give up, without ever waking up---but in reality, after taking his eight tricks and exiting, there's no sequence of play in which declarer would not get another trick. (The key question on this hand would be, is it irrational for declarer to dump a high heart on a diamond; that would tell us whether to award declarer 9 or 10 tricks.) There are other layouts, of course, that would pose more interesting questions. For example, give a defender xxxx Axxxx xx xx; now, after declarer takes his eight tricks, do we assume the only rational play is to lead a heart and that a club or diamond exit would be irrational (even though declarer has "given up")? I think this would be a sensible ruling, because that would be the point at which declarer would realize his line has broken down---he's taken all his top tricks like he said he would, but whoops, he only has 8 tricks and there are no more winners, so he has to do the one rational thing left to him, namely lead a heart and pray. > In other words, I always thought that we check the number of > tricks that declarer's _actually stated line of play_ would yield, > and award that number, _before_ we even considered alternative lines. > On this hand, there is no need to consider alternative lines at all, > unless the TD thinks declarer would have seen that his actually stated > line is irrational soon enough. > So, before going on, tell me how many tricks you award. I award > only 8, unless I am convinced that declarer would wake up, in which > case.... > Suppose you rule that declarer's line has broken down, and we > must consider alternative lines. Since the play of this hand is so > obvious that _even the worst player in my club would make 10 tricks_, That depends on whether the worst player in your club is married to me. If she is, she'd probably go down. I've seen her go down in a similar situation (that was at kitchen table bridge, literally). However, she's only played bridge maybe a dozen times. At least she's never revoked, which is more than I can say for some pro players with thousands of master points. [snip] > I am willing to agree that illegal plays are never normal. > (Otherwise, whenever we consider alternative lines we'll have to > include lines where the claimer made an illegal play, and no-one > wants that!) But I don't think that means we disallow them when they are > part of the _stated line_. I only think we disallow them when they are > part of an alternative line we are imagining. I agree. In fact, I think that if a play is part of the stated line, it's irrelevant whether that play is normal or irrational. Thus, if declarer's holding in a suit is AQ2 opposite KJ3, we'd never assume that declarer will unblock the KJ under the AQ (*), and would never consider this a "normal" play; however, if declarer stated that he would do exactly that, then we assume he would have. Since I feel that way about legal plays, I don't see any reason to suddenly apply the "normal" standard to illegal plays that are part of the stated line. -- Adam (*) Barring, of course, those extremely rare cases where the unblock is the only way to make the contract. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 10 10:32:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4A0W2p03371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 10:32:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4A0Vut03367 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 10:31:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-14.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.14]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 861445363D for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 01:31:40 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 01:28:30 +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: <3.0.6.32.20010509151227.007b1810@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Grant Sterling (Wed 09 May 2001 21:12) asks: > PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE CLAIMS: > Contract is 3 NT. Opening lead is a small diamond. > AKxx QJx > KQJ xxxx > xx AKx > Kxxx Axx > > CASE ONE: > Declarer sees the diamond lead and immediately says "I'll >take my 9 top tricks in spades, diamonds and clubs and give you the >rest". Now, in fact, he only has 8 top tricks--he has miscounted. >The defense objects. Unless you have become blinded by the sort of dogma bandied about in BLML, this case IMO is trivial. Declarer has made a valid claim specifying that he intends to take his top tricks in Ss, Ds &Cs and concede the rest. The fact that he thinks this yields 9 tricks is irrelevant. He has, in fact claimed the first eight tricks and conceded the last five. If he wishes to retract his concession of any of these tricks, he will have to make his case under L71 if he can. > CASE TWO: > Exactly the same as case one, except this time declarer says >"I'll win the A of diamonds. I'll lead to the hearts. If you duck >two rounds of hearts, I'll run my top winners and give you the >rest. If you win the ace on the first or second round, I'll win the >return and cash my top winners and give you the rest. Making 11 tricks." Similar problem, same approach. The claiming line is absolutely valid, except that it yields 10 tricks not 11 and the last three tricks have been conceded. Unless declarer can make a case under L71, he gets ten tricks. IOTTMCO - as this seems to be the buzz phrase! 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 May 10 11:45:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4A1jXk03508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 11:45:34 +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 f4A1jRt03504 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 11:45:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.51.64] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14xfVv-0004y1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 May 2001 02:45:12 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c0d8f2$b9841420$efc37ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.6.32.20010508132958.007c5590@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010508133022.00b5a8c0@127.0.0.1> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20010509125719.007c2480@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:43:40 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: > >> What I have not yet understood is _why_ anyone wants this 'dual > >>principle' setup. I can understand the Burn school, which wants to > >>ignore playing ability all the time for everyone and institute strict > >>and purely mechanical penalties wherever possible. I don't like that > >>approach in the slightest, but I understand it. Damned with faint praise, I guess. But, as Grant and others may have gathered, my entire approach is based on the principle that it is far better to have laws people understand than laws people like. The task of administering the laws became vastly more difficult in 1987 than it was in 1975, and orders of magnitude more difficult in 1997 than it was in 1987. The overwhelming majority of bridge players do not care a hoot what the laws actually are; all they care about is that the laws are the same, and rulings are the same, wherever and whenever they sit down to play. The current position, with laws being "interpreted" differently from here to Popocatapetl, and with many of the most eminent minds in the game subscribing to a mailing list which makes it obvious that no one has a clue what the rules actually are, is wholly intolerable. As to ignoring playing abilities all the time, the following absurdity is about to be perpetrated. In dealing with claims, there is a footnote in which the term "normal" is defined. This definition: "...careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational", is ambiguous, but the way in which it is currently worded makes it likely that the words "for the class of player involved" were meant to apply to "careless or inferior", but not to "irrational". Now, this is sensible, and one would have thought that the debate surrounding the issue would have led to a clarification that such was indeed the intent of the sensible people making the laws. Not a bit of it. The new wording is going to make it "clear" that a play which for one class of player may be irrational would not be considered so for another class of player. This unspeakable balderdash means that the footnote might as well be amended to read: "...bad or very bad, but not very very bad". At least that would make sense, though as a Law of Duplicate Contract Bridge, it would be completely ridiculous. 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 May 10 18:03:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4A82ft21973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 18:02:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4A82Qt21962 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 18:02:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-55.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.55]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4A825c12775; Thu, 10 May 2001 10:02:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AF8FBAD.CB0501E4@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:11:25 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon, I really don't see why you did not send this to the list. Gordon seems to think that with 3 (suspected last) trumps and 3 (suspected high) cards, a player could play all trumps first. Apparently there is no absolute consensus. Is this vision more widely held and are you all just keeping quiet. One way or another, I think this is something we should agree upon. Gordon Bower wrote: > > > Really, Herman, you are being quite unfair. > > If you have six winners in your hand, three trumps three not, there are > two "obvious" ways to cash out, trumps first or trumps last. I see them > both approximately equally frequently, by beginners and better players > alike. > > I find it strange there's the least bit of argument about forcing a > claimer to play them in whichever sequence results in taking the fewest > tricks. Maybe if the worst result is from some bizarre line like a side > winner, then two trumps another side winner the last trump and losing the > last trick or something, I'd say it wasn't normal. But a simple choise > between trumps first and trumps last? Completely normal, for all classes > of player. > > GRB Sorry once again, Gordon, for mailing publicly what you sent me privately, but I really did not understand why you don't let the world share your opinion. It is a perfectly valid one and I have great respect for it. If more people share this opinion, perhaps it is the correct way to proceed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 10 18:03:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4A82fM21974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 18:02:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4A82Qt21961 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 18:02:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-55.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.55]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4A829c12807 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 10:02:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AF8FDE2.649A85B8@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:20:50 +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: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> <4.3.2.7.1.20010508105402.00a9f3d0@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: > > > Nobody is saying that Mr. Garozzo is a beginner, only that once in a > while he does make beginner-level errors. He does. I have seen it > happen. Is there anyone out there with a reasonable amount of > competitive bridge experience who hasn't seen a player of Mr. Garozzo's > stature make a beginner-level error? > Of course he does, perhaps a bit less than I do, but neither of us should be (and is) ruled against as if we've made a beginner-type error in a claim. A beginner, however, is much more likely to make a beginner-type error. Should we rule their claim as if they were Garozzo ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 10 18:03:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4A82fn21975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 18:02:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4A82Rt21963 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 18:02:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-55.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.55]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4A82Cc12824 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 10:02:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:27:51 +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] A Belgian Claim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Final of the Belgian team cup (8 teams), so no beginners here : 3NT, one trick taken (HA), 3 tricks lost, to the aces and king of diamonds and the ace of clubs, LHO on lead, time pressure. AK85 - -- KQJ85- JT3 -K5 QT-- 94- (played cards indicated with -) Declarer claims 10 tricks, without much more of a statement, but it is clear he intends to make 2 spades, 5 clubs, and 2 red tricks. 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 Thu May 10 20:06:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AA64k02269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 20:06:04 +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 ([145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4AA2Ut02250 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 20:02:39 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id MAA32492; Thu, 10 May 2001 12:02:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu May 10 12:01:35 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 <01K3ECCD2IV8006G4P@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 10 May 2001 12:01:21 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 12:00:29 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:01:20 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B857@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It was published some 8 years ago, by the ACBL as an article in a bulletin for TD's that just started to appear and soon after that disappeared again. Declarer in a spade contract is on lead with three cards remaining. The assumption is that declarer lost count of the trumps and believes that they all are gone, but in his own hand. His LHO has SK, CAK and we present three cases for declarer's hand: 1) SA HA DA 2) S2 HA DA 3) SQ HA DA In all three cases declarer claims 3 tricks with the statement 'all high'. The conclusion in this article is that it is quite possible (so 'normal' as used in the laws) to start with the side aces in 1) as it is normal to start with the ace. Stating with a side ae giving the worst result that has to be the decision by the TD In 2) the statement is that playing the deuce of spades in trick 11 is not rational (it is an interesting question whether there might be someting left between rational and irrational which then is included in 'not rational'). 'NOBODY will play that card with just two side aces to play. It should be saved for ruffing purposes etc. If we agree, and I am willing to do so, then a small step is made. In 3) the safety play or random approach makes it possible to start with the SQ and therefore declarer looses all 3 tricks. The interesting question is when, climbing from S2 to S3, S4 etc. it starts to be normal to play that card in the 11th trick. S10 yes, S5 no ? I don't need David B. to tell us that he should loose all 3 tricks in all cases where he hasn't the SA, for principal reasons. And yes playing the 3 high trumps first and then the supposed to be high others could be normal. But what with S432 (trumps, none outside) HKQ and CA? and the HA still outside (but not aware of)? Nobody starts playing S432 unless my aunt knows that the HA is still in and all diamonds are gone hoping to see the HA discarded. And is anybody starting with the CA in stead of the HK? So is playing the CA rational? May be it isn't but is it irrational? ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Verzonden: woensdag 9 mei 2001 10:11 > Aan: Gordon Bower; Bridge Laws > Onderwerp: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] > > > Gordon, > > I really don't see why you did not send this to the list. > > Gordon seems to think that with 3 (suspected last) trumps > and 3 (suspected high) cards, a player could play all trumps > first. > Apparently there is no absolute consensus. > > Is this vision more widely held and are you all just keeping > quiet. > > One way or another, I think this is something we should > agree upon. > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > > > Really, Herman, you are being quite unfair. > > > > If you have six winners in your hand, three trumps three > not, there are > > two "obvious" ways to cash out, trumps first or trumps > last. I see them > > both approximately equally frequently, by beginners and > better players > > alike. > > > > I find it strange there's the least bit of argument about forcing a > > claimer to play them in whichever sequence results in > taking the fewest > > tricks. Maybe if the worst result is from some bizarre line > like a side > > winner, then two trumps another side winner the last trump > and losing the > > last trick or something, I'd say it wasn't normal. But a > simple choise > > between trumps first and trumps last? Completely normal, > for all classes > > of player. > > > > GRB > > Sorry once again, Gordon, for mailing publicly what you sent > me privately, but I really did not understand why you don't > let the world share your opinion. It is a perfectly valid > one and I have great respect for it. If more people share > this opinion, perhaps it is the correct way to proceed. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 10 21:54:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ABsLG02620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 21:54:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f4ABsDt02616 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 21:54:14 +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 f4ABrtG03009 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 07:53:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010510074634.00abe8e0@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, 10 May 2001 07:55:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <3AF8FDE2.649A85B8@village.uunet.be> References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> <4.3.2.7.1.20010508105402.00a9f3d0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:20 AM 5/9/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > Nobody is saying that Mr. Garozzo is a beginner, only that once in a > > while he does make beginner-level errors. He does. I have seen it > > happen. Is there anyone out there with a reasonable amount of > > competitive bridge experience who hasn't seen a player of Mr. Garozzo's > > stature make a beginner-level error? > >Of course he does, perhaps a bit less than I do, but neither >of us should be (and is) ruled against as if we've made a >beginner-type error in a claim. >A beginner, however, is much more likely to make a >beginner-type error. Should we rule their claim as if they >were Garozzo ? Is it simply a beginner-type error, or is it an irrational action? If the former, it would be common for beginners to make such an error, whereas for Mr. Garozzo it would be extraordinary careless and quite rare. But TFLB says "'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved", so we must consider the line for Mr. Garozzo notwithstanding how careless or inferior it might be for a player of his class, just as we do for the beginner for whom it is not particularly careless or inferior. If the latter, we do not consider it for either, as TFLB tells us not to. So IMO the answer is yes: we should rule the beginner's claim as though they were Garozzo. 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 May 11 00:05:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AE3oP04410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:03:50 +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 f4AE3ht04406 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:03:44 +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 PAA03366; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:59:41 +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 QAA00695; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:02:46 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010510160649.008236b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:06:49 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010509093456.00a9f100@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20010508134745.007c7680@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010508105402.00a9f3d0@127.0.0.1> <3AF7ED59.4CA05F79@village.uunet.be> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:48 9/05/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >I strongly disagree, and would challenge Grant to find a single >non-bridge-playing football fan who would agree with him that football >"would be improved by giving variable penalties based on the damage >caused by the foul". AG : believe me, there are variable penalties in some sports, notably European Football (Soccer, if you prefer). Say you bring down an opponent 30 yd away from the goal. In ordinary cases, ie when some players of both camps were nearer to your goal, he gets a free kick, and if you were nasty, you get a yellow card. If you were the 'last man' before he encountered the keeper, you get a red card. Why ? Because the damage is greater : in the former case, one doesn't know whether the opponent would have made good use of the ball, while in the latter one, you've probably deprived him of scoring a goal. I don't say variable penalties are the panacaea of bridge, only that, contrary to what you (and several others) pretend, they are sometimes used in other sports. 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 May 11 00:12:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AEAE404451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:10:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4AEA1t04447 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:10:03 +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 QAA14480; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:09:26 +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 QAA05401; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:09:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010510161309.00829100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:13:09 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Abbreviations In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010509111837.00b62340@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:20 9/05/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >Both Michael and Alain wrote: > >IOTTMCO AG : Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer. Subtitle : one would need to lack either good faith or elementary judgement not to see it, usually the former. 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 May 11 00:20:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AEI8Z04508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:18:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4AEHut04502 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:17:57 +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 QAA06639; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:14:04 +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 QAA11695; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:17:08 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010510162112.00829a30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:21:12 +0200 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Legality and hard feelings In-Reply-To: <008d01c0d8a3$2af45b60$4ce136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f4AEHxt04504 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:14 10/05/01 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>Adam Beneschan wrote: >>>(b) As for being left with a bad taste in your mouth, the best >>>way to avoid this is to remind yourself what a great service you >>>have done for the local bridge community by shooting this player. >> >>AG : you could also try spearmint chewing gum. > > >Unless you're playing bridge in Singapore, where both >chewing gum and murder are illegal. > >I wouldn't worry too much about the loud opponent making >an enemy of me. I think that reminding yourself that he has the problem >(his temper), and if the Director won't do anything >about it, then all you can and should do is try to forget the >whole incident and do your best to enjoy the rest of the game. >Having escaped from that table as soon as play finishes >in order to have a soothing cup of coffee or tea, or course. AG : there is another way to feel good : just ask yourself, having seen and, above all, heard this guy, whether you would rather count him among your friends or enemies, and you'll realise you're happy. 'Il n'est pas dans le monde de jouissance plus subtile Que de passer pour con aux yeux d'un imbécile' Translation : There is no such subtle pleasure in this world Than to be considered as wicked and stupid by a moron. 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 May 11 00:34:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AEVTr04566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:31:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4AEVIt04562 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:31:19 +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 QAA10672; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:27:27 +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 QAA23376; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:30:32 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010510163435.00824100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:34:35 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim In-Reply-To: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:27 9/05/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Final of the Belgian team cup (8 teams), so no beginners >here : > >3NT, one trick taken (HA), 3 tricks lost, to the aces and >king of diamonds and the ace of clubs, LHO on lead, time >pressure. > > AK85 > - > -- > KQJ85- > > JT3 > -K5 > QT-- > 94- > >(played cards indicated with -) >Declarer claims 10 tricks, without much more of a statement, >but it is clear he intends to make 2 spades, 5 clubs, and 2 >red tricks. > >TD ? AG : it would not be rational to play KQ of clubs, then the spades, so that you can't demand declarer to block himself. There are two rational lines of play : a) AK of spades, spade. This will yield 2 losers if somebody has Q9xx, one if somebody has Qxx(x), 0 if Q is bare or once guarded. b) Clubs, then AK spades, spade. This will yield 2 losers if somebody has Qxx(x), with or without the nine, because South wouldn't know what to discard at trick 12 (so pretend he will go wrong), 0 if Q is bare or once guarded. Since line 2 is more unfavorable to the OS, adjust according to line 2. If the C10 is now bare, do not allow declarer to go back to his hand with C9, because it would be 'inferior, not irrational' not to notice he could. 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 May 11 00:38:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AEclQ04584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:38:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f16.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.15.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4AEcft04580 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:38:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 May 2001 07:38:21 -0700 Received: from 208.11.8.3 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2001 14:38:21 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.11.8.3] From: "David Kent" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:38:21 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2001 14:38:21.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC5B5460:01C0D95E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Ted Ying >I carry one in my brief case and refer back to it...but sometimes >some things are not included. I recently had a precision pair who >was playing an opening of 2NT showed 0-11 and 5-5 or better in the >minors. So, they knew it was alertable, but the question arose >from the opponents, of (1) was it pre-alertable and (2) was a >recommended defense required for it. I said that all players should >have a defense to any conventional bid in their repertoire for the >opponents. The opponents would have wanted a pre-alert to discuss a >defensive system. The vague descriptions of pre-alertable material Applies to ACBL: >From the GCC: "7. OPENING NOTRUMP BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating at least 5-4 distribution in the minors." >From the alert procdures for the ACBL: "Pre-Alerts must be given before the auction period begins on the first board of a round." - TWO-SYSTEM METHODS - SYSTEMS BASED ON VERY LIGHT OPENINGS OR OTHER HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE METHODS - SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS >From the ACBL Super-chart: "Pre-Alerts are required for all conventional methods not permitted on the ACBL General Convention Chart. Description of, and suggested defenses to, such methods must be made in writing. A defense to a method which requires the above pre-Alert may be referred to during the auction by opponents of the convention user. " The remainder of this reply is based on the supposition that the GCC is in effect for the event in question. If not, please disregard the following snide comments. >From the regulations quoted above: The answer to question #1 is NO. The answer to question #2 is NO. >I said that all players should >have a defense to any conventional bid in their repertoire for the >opponents. Do you give your opponents a suggested defense for Stayman? >The opponents would have wanted a pre-alert to discuss a >defensive system. They can discuss their defense to the opening bid, but not after the bid is made. >The vague descriptions of pre-alertable material >was not helpful in this situation. I do read it and sometimes it >still isn't descriptive enough. The description on the GCC/Pre-Alert Regulations/Super-Chart rules is not vague to me. >And I have to tell players what to >do...and if I say that it isn't (after all, is this that different >from an unusual NT? And many Precision players do play this) but >the next TD thinks it is unusual enough, what are players to do? What right do you have to tell a pair what your suggested defense to any convention is? If they ask you in the bar after the game, that would be fine. The ACBL, in its infintite wisdom, has decided that pre-alerts and suggested defenses to GCC conventions are not required. Many are alertable, as is the 2NT opening bid to show the minors, but the ACBL has decided that the opponents should be prepared for these bids. David Kent _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 00:47:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AEl9E04621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:47:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4AEkxt04606 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:47:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-161.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.161]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4AEkfn27800 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:46:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFA4E98.D11B11A3@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:17:28 +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 out of turn References: <3.0.6.32.20010509151227.007b1810@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'm going to try again to explain the distinction that is > apparently causing my problems. Please let me know if I have just > misunderstood something completely. > > > Fine. I agree, yes. But I always thought claim resolution > was a two step process: [and so on] > > What have I misunderstood? Or do we really give the same number > of tricks in Case One and Case Two, even though what appears to be > equity is radically different? > Grant's analysis is perfect. Thought I'd just say 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 Fri May 11 00:47:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AElC904622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:47:12 +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-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 f4AEl1t04608 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:47:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-161.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.161]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4AEkjn27845 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:46:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFA4F24.67F892AF@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:19:48 +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] claiming out of turn References: <3.0.6.32.20010509151227.007b1810@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: > > > > >Of course we all agree that an illegal play that benefits the claimer > >will not be allowed. (Don't we?) > > I am willing to agree that illegal plays are never normal. > (Otherwise, whenever we consider alternative lines we'll have to > include lines where the claimer made an illegal play, and no-one > wants that!) But I don't think that means we disallow them when they are > part of the _stated line_. I only think we disallow them when they are > part of an alternative line we are imagining. Since I don't think all > disputed claims involve considering alternative lines at all, I think > illegal plays can be part of a claim when it is to claimer's disadvantage. > I believe we should also include them in alternative lines, when we believe that the claimer might actually make the illegal play. I've often given the example of claimer with only 12 cards. He can surely be deemed to make an illegal play sometime, can't he ? I still have not heard from either Tom, Grattan, or Kojak on that one ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 00:47:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AElGe04623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:47:16 +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-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 f4AEl4t04615 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 00:47:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-161.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.161]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4AEkln27879 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:46:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFA50C8.E62E5A43@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:26:48 +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] claiming out of turn References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: > > >Grant Sterling (Wed 09 May 2001 21:12) asks: > > PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE CLAIMS: > > Contract is 3 NT. Opening lead is a small diamond. > > AKxx QJx > > KQJ xxxx > > xx AKx > > Kxxx Axx > > > > CASE ONE: > > Declarer sees the diamond lead and immediately says "I'll > >take my 9 top tricks in spades, diamonds and clubs and give you the > >rest". Now, in fact, he only has 8 top tricks--he has miscounted. > >The defense objects. > > Unless you have become blinded by the sort of dogma bandied about in BLML, > this case IMO is trivial. > Declarer has made a valid claim specifying that he intends to take his top > tricks in Ss, Ds &Cs and concede the rest. The fact that he thinks this > yields 9 tricks is irrelevant. He has, in fact claimed the first eight > tricks and conceded the last five. If he wishes to retract his concession > of any of these tricks, he will have to make his case under L71 if he can. > Sorry Chas, just plain wrong. Grant's anaysis is perfect. This is a claim where the stated line "breaks down". After that point, all "normal" lines are back into consideration. Those normal lines do not include cashing a second diamond before chasing out the ace of hearts. Now we may disagree as to whether declarer will notice he has made a mistake in counting his tricks before or after playing to a particular trick, and I don't want to give any opinion on that without knowing more of the facts, but it is simply not true that you disallow the waking up completely. Sometimes, players claim before analysing the complete play. That does not mean they would not analyse the lay-out if actually playing. Claimers should get the worst of normal lines, but not of irrational ones! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 01:07:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AF6kV04720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 01:06:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4AF6Xt04715 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 01:06:34 +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 f4AF6Fc20896 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 11:06:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010510102018.00b646f0@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, 10 May 2001 11:08:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010509140801.007c4100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010509093456.00a9f100@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010508134745.007c7680@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010508105402.00a9f3d0@127.0.0.1> <3AF7ED59.4CA05F79@village.uunet.be> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:08 PM 5/9/01, Grant wrote: > That isn't what your proposal would lead to. I have yet to see >a TD impose an _irrational_ line on Mrs. G. This is the heart of the issue. In Grant's world, irrational lines are not imposed upon Mrs. G. because they are, by definition, not irrational *for Mrs. G.* But when we impose a line on Mrs. G. that we determine is "rational" for Mrs. G. but would be "irrational" for a somewhat better player, is that "impos[ing] an _irrational_ line" or not? If not, we must perforce believe that the fact that Mrs. G. is not as good a bridge player than Mrs. X is prima facie evidence that she is not as rational a person. A fable of two players in our unit... Mr. L is a superb bridge player with gazillions of master points. He is also a borderline psychotic. Until achieving success as a bridge pro, he went through life with no visible means of support. Mr. S is a duffer who plays at fair novice to low intermediate level. He is also a Justice of the Supreme Court and one of the world's outstanding jurists. Does the fact that Mr. L is a more careful and superior bridge player make Mr. L more rational than Mr. S? Is Mr. S more rational than Mr. L when he is away from the bridge table but suffering from a rare brain disease that turns him suddenly irrational when he plays bridge? Should Mr. S resign from the Court and give his seat to Mr. L? OK, I'm being silly. But the point is that careless or inferior means careless or inferior; it has nothing to do with rationality. >Ergo, in practice, what >you are arguing for will lead to little change in the life of Mr. Garozzo >[who probably makes fewer imperfect claims, and whose opponents probably >seldom call a TD to claim that he might have crashed his honors], very >little change in the life of Mrs. Guggenheim [who hardly ever claims >unless he hand contains all trump honors, and who is probably routinely >ruled against whenever she claims imperfectly anyway], and enormously >harsher penalties for the borderline players who are getting over their >innate fear of claiming but don't have the skills to make perfect >claims. The 'irrational' standard, particularly as it has been >enunciated by some on this list [not necessarily including you, Eric], >is extraordinarily harsh, and if it were ever to be officially imposed >and actually carried into practice [two very different things] it >would lead to enormously harsher penalties. > I think that's very bad. And it might be, if David B. and others who share his views had their way. But we can argue long and legimately about how harsh or lenient the standards of irrationality should be -- my own view is somewhere in the middle, disagreeing with both those who think starting AKQJ2 with the 2 when you believe they're all good is rational and those who think that starting A10xx opposite KQ9xx with the A is irrational. But we're not talking about what's rational and what isn't; we're talking about whether some action in some situation can legimately be rational for some people but not for others. I do not accept the argument that the standards should not be the same for everyone because if we make them so we will also perforce make them too harsh. These are separate issues. > I don't want to sit on an AC in which the proper ruling will >be "We know with virtually 100% certainty that you would have made >12 tricks on this hand, Mr. Jones, but because Mrs. Guggenheim sometimes >takes a finesse when she holds 11 cards to the AK, we have to rule that >you will take a first round finesse and go down 12. We know that you >have never done anything like this in the last 30 years you've played >bridge, but that's irrelevant to deciding your claim." I don't see >how anyone can argue that _this_ is somehow good for the game. In my world this wouldn't happen. But the opposite would. Grant (and the rest of us) would have to sit on ACs in which a proper ruling would be, "We know with virtually 100% certainty that Mrs. Guggenheim sometimes takes a finesse when she holds 11 cards to the AK, but because that is irrational, and because we have no reason to believe that she will do something irrational on this particular hand, we have to rule that she would have made 12 tricks on this hand. We know that you have seen her fail to play rationally in the past, but that's irrelevant to deciding her claim." If it would trouble Grant (or anyone else) to give that ruling, I will continue to disagree with him. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 01:10:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AF9pN04743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 01:09:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp8.xs4all.nl (smtp8.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.134]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4AF9bt04738 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 01:09:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from p500 (a213-84-30-42.adsl.xs4all.nl [213.84.30.42]) by smtp8.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA13400; Thu, 10 May 2001 17:09:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <008c01c0d963$18b6d980$9600000a@p500> From: "Kees van der Weijden" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested? Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 17:08:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested? > In-Reply-To: > JP Pals wrote: > > I am a bit confused by the discussion about this > > problem in a Dutch newsgroup: > > > > All vul, dealer East. > > All competent players, not experts. > > > > W N E S > > - - 1S x > > 2S 3H 3S 4H > > 4S ....p p ?? > > > > South holds: > > > > 5 > > AQ932 > > AJ5 > > A942 > > > > IMO, South's options are pass, double and 5H. Tim West-meads wrote > IMO pass is not an option. Opponents were willing to stop short of game > but were pushed to it. South bid 4H to make on the previous round. South > cannot possibly contemplate passing now. Looking at this hand I reckon > North was most likely contemplating 5H (he wouldn't often consider a > double on an aceless hand would he?). Since I feel 5H to be mildly > suggested I think double should be allowed. > > Tim I think that double would be an irregularity. Proof: North had a pause. That could be either on AVx Hxxxx xxx xx but also on x HBxxxx xxxx xx Both hands are difficult to evaluate, so a pause for some thinking is logical in North. When South doubles, is it also logical to bid 5H with the second hand. Since South's double anticipates on both hands, i feel that therefore double is already an irregularity. Since pass is not an option (agree), therefore 5H is permitted. What do you think of this reasoning? Some players say however that because after double North is "captain of the auction", South has already told his extra's after 4H. In that case pass is obligated. This style of bidding proves to be an expertstyle (between -dutch-experts). How much can you say for this reasoning? ======================= Greetings, Kees van der Weijden woek@xs4all.nl http://www.xs4all.nl/~woek/ ======================= -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 01:31:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AFVDw04806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 01:31:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f4AFV6t04802 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 01:31:07 +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 f4AFUnK87215 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 11:30:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010510112647.00b617c0@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, 10 May 2001 11:32:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <001d01c0d8f2$b9841420$efc37ad5@pbncomputer> References: <3.0.6.32.20010508132958.007c5590@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010508133022.00b5a8c0@127.0.0.1> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20010509125719.007c2480@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:43 PM 5/9/01, David wrote: >As to ignoring playing abilities all the time, the following absurdity >is about to be perpetrated. In dealing with claims, there is a footnote >in which the term "normal" is defined. This definition: "...careless or >inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational", is >ambiguous, but the way in which it is currently worded makes it likely >that the words "for the class of player involved" were meant to apply to >"careless or inferior", but not to "irrational". Now, this is sensible, >and one would have thought that the debate surrounding the issue would >have led to a clarification that such was indeed the intent of the >sensible people making the laws. > >Not a bit of it. The new wording is going to make it "clear" that a play >which for one class of player may be irrational would not be considered >so for another class of player. This unspeakable balderdash means that >the footnote might as well be amended to read: "...bad or very bad, but >not very very bad". At least that would make sense, though as a Law of >Duplicate Contract Bridge, it would be completely ridiculous. Pardon my flagrant violation of netiquette, but I can't help myself... Very well said, David. I absolutely agree, 100%. 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 May 11 01:55:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AFsrs04917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 01:54:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4AFsWt04907 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 01:54:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-63.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.63]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BF99622E193 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:08 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Uncertain explanation Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:50:55 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal 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 04 May 2001 02:33) writes: >>Brambledown writes >>From a club game last night: >>Dealer N, NSV >> >> K Q 7 5 2 >> A K 6 >> 8 >> A K 10 3 >> >> J 10 6 3 9 >> 5 4 2 J 9 8 7 >> J 5 3 2 A K Q 10 4 >> J 6 9 4 2 >> >> A 8 4 >> Q 10 3 >> 9 7 6 >> Q 8 7 5 >> >>N: 2N. 19-20 bal (may contain singleton and/or 5 card suit) >>E: 3D. Alerted and explained by W as: "We play ASTRO over 1N and I >>*think* we've agreed to play it over 2N as well in which case it shows 5-4 >>in spades and another suit BUT I'm really not sure". >>S (after some further thought): Dble >>All pass. > > I appreciate that this is not an answer to the question, but we should >try to publicise as far as we can the importance of calling the TD in >possible MI cases at the earliest possible opportunity. In this case, >if South had called the TD before he had called, and explained his >difficulty, the TD would have sent West away from the table, and asked >East if he knew what he E/W agreement was. If East said he knew, then >he would have invited East to tell South. Note that the TD must not >bully East into telling them what he thought if there is no agreement. This is an interesting argument, which raises more questions. Since South could have called the TD before his first call but didn't, are you going to dismiss or be less sympathetic to the NS claim for damage? If not, then although it may be a 'good thing', it's not likely to be in South's interest to call the TD at that stage. If OTOH you are, the argument is presumably that any uncertainty in an explanation is an irregularity, that once attention has been drawn to it the TD must be called (L9B1) and that failure to do this may damage the NOS (à la Brighton #3). Applied rigorously this would IMO cause chaos. I reckon that at least half a dozen times during an evening's play I hear an explanation including the words "I think", "maybe", "possibly", "I'm not sure, but.." or some other dilution of the explanation being given. I do not believe that it would be practical to insist that whenever this happens the TD must be called so that he can send a player away from the table while enquiries are made. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 01:56:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4AFtsd04932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 01:55:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4AFtYt04928 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 01:55:35 +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 f4AFtFo49833 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 11:55:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010510114059.00b61980@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, 10 May 2001 11:57:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010510160649.008236b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010509093456.00a9f100@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010508134745.007c7680@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010508105402.00a9f3d0@127.0.0.1> <3AF7ED59.4CA05F79@village.uunet.be> <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCC@al194.minfod.com> <002101c0d796$aaf4a580$8c51063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:06 AM 5/10/01, alain wrote: >At 10:48 9/05/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > > >I strongly disagree, and would challenge Grant to find a single > >non-bridge-playing football fan who would agree with him that football > >"would be improved by giving variable penalties based on the damage > >caused by the foul". > >AG : believe me, there are variable penalties in some sports, notably >European Football (Soccer, if you prefer). Say you bring down an opponent >30 yd away from the goal. In ordinary cases, ie when some players of both >camps were nearer to your goal, he gets a free kick, and if you were >nasty, >you get a yellow card. If you were the 'last man' before he >encountered the >keeper, you get a red card. Why ? Because the damage is greater : in the >former case, one doesn't know whether the opponent would have made >good use >of the ball, while in the latter one, you've probably deprived him of >scoring a goal. >I don't say variable penalties are the panacaea of bridge, only that, >contrary to what you (and several others) pretend, they are sometimes used >in other sports. What I wrote was "variable penalties based on the damage caused by the foul", not "variable penalties based on anything whatsoever". OK, a defender who commits a foul on an opponent 30 yards from the goal gets a yellow card if there are additional players between him and the goal and a red card otherwise. I have no problem with that. But if the rules of football required the officials to do equity based on a determination of actual damage, a defender who commited such a foul when there were additional players between him and the goal would get either a yellow card or a red card depending on the referee's determination as to the level of ability of the fouled player and the levels of ability of the particular players who happened to be between him and the goal when he was fouled. I would have a problem with that, and assert that at least 99.99% of football fans would also. 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 May 11 12:09:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B28ao23620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 12:08:36 +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-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 f4B28Jt23605 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 12:08:21 +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 14y2LZ-0003yQ-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 03:08:03 +0100 Message-ID: <8KeeToBcZ0+6EwHD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 02:54:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure References: <200105082044.f48Kio318126@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <200105090327.XAA08114@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200105090327.XAA08114@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother writes >On 8 May 2001 at 16:44, Ted Ying wrote: >>Well, many club players who don't have access to the web and don't >>travel to tournaments, find it harder to get a hold of the 16-page >>document and often ask the directors what is and isn't alertable. >True, but any club that doesn't have the 1 large page Alert chart >available to their members (or better yet, posted somewhere), are >mistreating those members. Recently someone at my local ACBL club asked me whether something was alertable. She said she had no easy way of finding out. I went and looked at the large Alert Chart posted clearly on the wall, and there it was perfectly clearly! Still, that showed how easy it was for me to find out. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 12:09:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B28bg23622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 12:08:38 +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-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 f4B28Mt23607 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 12:08:22 +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 14y2Lc-0003yM-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 03:08:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 03:05:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Abbreviations References: <200105091603.RAA24492@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200105091603.RAA24492@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 >> From: Eric Landau >> Subject: [BLML] Abbreviations >> >> Both Michael and Alain wrote: >> >> IOTTMCO >> >> ?? > >A quick web search reveals >"IOTTMCO [Immediately Obvious To The Most Casual Observer]" If it needed a web search then it wasn't. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 12:09:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B28dq23624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 12:08:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f4B28Jt23603 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 12:08:21 +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 14y2LV-0003yO-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 03:08:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 02:38:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B835@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3AEFCC09.E54895D1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes >From: David Stevenson >| Roger Pewick writes >| >From: Herman De Wael >| >| In my experience, what happens at the table is that the TD >| >| arrives, asks "how can I help you", and the player will say >| >| "I didn't notice the 1Di and opened 1He". No mind reading >| >| required. >| >On what basis is the player's partner entitled to a communication >not >| >by bid or play? In this case, to the 'fact' that he did not >realize >| >the presence of the opening bid [OOT] and that 1H was intended as >an >| >opening bid as opposed to an overcall. >| > >| >It is my view that communicating other than by bids and plays is >not >| >bridge, and demanding or even encouraging players to do so is >| >deleterious to the pastime. >| Do you *really* think a TD asking "How can I help you?" is >deleterious >| to the game of bridge? >I think that if players have learned that revealing one's >motivation/thinking in response to such a question is appropriate then >there is a problem. And if adjudicators think it is appropriate there >is a bad problem. Am I wrong to so think? You have completely lost me. The Director comes to the table, says "How can I help you?" and you made a post that suggested this is bad for the game. Now you have made an even stranger post, which certainly does not answer the question. If I understand you correctly, when your LHO leads out of turn, the Director arrives and says "How can I help?" you are suggesting refusing to answer. Why? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 12:09:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B28cq23623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 12:08:38 +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-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 f4B28Jt23604 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 12:08:21 +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 14y2LW-0003yK-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 03:08:01 +0100 Message-ID: <1aJcnlBBT0+6EwHP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 02:47:45 +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> <001e01c0d18f$71474ac0$ce247bd5@pacific> <3AF263A6.5ACB634A@village.uunet.be> <3AF2E4EE.34CBF57D@link.net> <3AF32AD7.66C88D1A@link.net> In-Reply-To: <3AF32AD7.66C88D1A@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 >Hello Ed >Adjusting the score for me is a penalty. I can be placed 3rd instead of first. >Maybe we are using different terms. But I think you understand what I mean. >A redress of damage if this damage is not intentional at the end damages me. No >matter how you use the words or how you phrase them. > >Because, I become the "non-offending" side when it to comes to such "diversity" >that defines "proper procedure", and this diversity on it's turn becomes nothing >but "irregularity". >I don't see why we wouldn't have standard alerting regulations, updated when >needed, but unified. >Regulations that depend primarily on the game and not on the place where the >game is played. > >So if we find ourselves on the moon or on the internet, the game stands, still. >It doesn't have to lose any of it's consistency. As an entity by itself >regardless of organizations bridge should offer to it's players and these >players have all the right to a uniform and steady pattern. > >Isn't it awkward to ask a question concerning a game and then get the answer >"depends were you live" and this seems to be the only answer you get ? All sports have local regulations. There will always be different regulations dependent on the type of event, for example, so if you do not want any regulations, first you cannot have different types of event. It really does not work. Of course, what is covered by Law and what by regulation is a matter to be decided. As it stands at the moment the alerting rules are so different I feel it would be almost impossible to standardise them, and there would be a lot of dislocation by so doing. Personally, I think we do not want to standardise them at this stage. As far as the only answer you get, that seems a little harsh. I live in Liverpool, in England, and immediately I find out you are asking about alerting regulations in Egypt I have sent emails to [a] two Directors that have directed tournaments there and [b] the Egyptian Bridge Federation. I have also checked the Egyptian Bridge Federation website. It is not entirely my fault that so far I have had no helpful answer, but I am trying. Furthermore, even if you could convince me that it would be a good idea to have standard alerting regulations [not that I can do anything about it!] it would still take some years for this to happen. On this list we do our best to be helpful to questions. Please have a little patience. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 12:57:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B2usT23746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 12:56:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4B2umt23742 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 12:56:48 +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 NAA09721 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 13:01:38 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 11 May 2001 12:48:13 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish Club To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 12:55:04 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/05/2001 12:52:40 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the May 2001 Editorial of The Bridge World, Roger Bielawski wrote: >In his tendentious and self-serving series of >articles on the Olympiad (January through April >issues), Larry Cohen complains that the United >States and England were at a disadvantage in >their semifinal matches against Poland and >Italy because of the latter two teams' highly >unusual methods. Those systems may be >unfamiliar to the author, but none are >classified as "HUM" by the World Bridge >Federation. And his bug-bear, the Polish Club, >is no more artificial than the version of >Precision used by Berkowitz and Cohen. In >fact, the Italian and Polish systems are fairly >common in large parts of Europe, where >techniques such as two-over-one game- >forcing are virtually unknown. [big snip] Jeff Rubens' suggested solution to the familiarity problem was to further restrict allowed systems in at least some World Championships. (Was he implying that the *familiarity* criterion for a restricted allowable system was *familiar to an ACBL player*, so two-over-one game forcing would be automatically permitted in his proposed system- restricted World Championships, but that the Polish Club and even the Nottingham Club would be forbidden?) In Australia, many expatriate Poles and some native Aussies play Polish Club unrestricted by ABF fiat, even in country congress competitions. Familiarity in defending against the method is thus easily gained. What Jeff Rubens should have suggested as a solution is that the ACBL loosen its systems restrictions, to be comparable with other Zones and the WBF. This would have two advantages. Firstly, expatriate Poles living in America would be permitted to play the bidding system they grew up with. Secondly, Americans who play in international events would now be able to exercise their brains at home, instead of merely coasting as big fishes in a small (system) pond. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 13:33:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B3Wju23834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 13:32:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f4B3Wat23828 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 13:32:38 +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 14y3f8-000IAm-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 04:32:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 04:31:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure References: <200105082044.f48Kio318126@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <200105090327.XAA08114@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <8KeeToBcZ0+6EwHD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8KeeToBcZ0+6EwHD@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 <8KeeToBcZ0+6EwHD@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Michael Farebrother writes >>On 8 May 2001 at 16:44, Ted Ying wrote: > >>>Well, many club players who don't have access to the web and don't >>>travel to tournaments, find it harder to get a hold of the 16-page >>>document and often ask the directors what is and isn't alertable. > >>True, but any club that doesn't have the 1 large page Alert chart >>available to their members (or better yet, posted somewhere), are >>mistreating those members. > > Recently someone at my local ACBL club asked me whether something was >alertable. She said she had no easy way of finding out. > > I went and looked at the large Alert Chart posted clearly on the wall, >and there it was perfectly clearly! Still, that showed how easy it was >for me to find out. > In common with many clubs the alert chart posted at our local ACBL club is about 5 years out of date. Still it's better than nothing :)) 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 Fri May 11 13:42:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B3gGI23874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 13:42:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cyberus.ca (mail.cyberus.ca [209.195.95.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4B3gAt23870 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 13:42:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from etm1 (ip189.ts17-2.mn.dialup.ottawa.cyberus.ca [209.195.66.189]) by cyberus.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3/Cyberus Online Inc.) with SMTP id XAA14168 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 23:41:52 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Glen Ashton" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Polish Club Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:41:08 -0400 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 V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ACBL members can already play Polish club (but not 2D shows 5-5, suits unknown) - my Polish partner and I played Polish club yesterday and last weekend. Glen Ashton My bridge stuff: www.bridgematters.com www.GlenAshton.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sent: May 10, 2001 10:55 PM To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish Club In the May 2001 Editorial of The Bridge World, Roger Bielawski wrote: >In his tendentious and self-serving series of >articles on the Olympiad (January through April >issues), Larry Cohen complains that the United >States and England were at a disadvantage in >their semifinal matches against Poland and >Italy because of the latter two teams' highly >unusual methods. Those systems may be >unfamiliar to the author, but none are >classified as "HUM" by the World Bridge >Federation. And his bug-bear, the Polish Club, >is no more artificial than the version of >Precision used by Berkowitz and Cohen. In >fact, the Italian and Polish systems are fairly >common in large parts of Europe, where >techniques such as two-over-one game- >forcing are virtually unknown. [big snip] Jeff Rubens' suggested solution to the familiarity problem was to further restrict allowed systems in at least some World Championships. (Was he implying that the *familiarity* criterion for a restricted allowable system was *familiar to an ACBL player*, so two-over-one game forcing would be automatically permitted in his proposed system- restricted World Championships, but that the Polish Club and even the Nottingham Club would be forbidden?) In Australia, many expatriate Poles and some native Aussies play Polish Club unrestricted by ABF fiat, even in country congress competitions. Familiarity in defending against the method is thus easily gained. What Jeff Rubens should have suggested as a solution is that the ACBL loosen its systems restrictions, to be comparable with other Zones and the WBF. This would have two advantages. Firstly, expatriate Poles living in America would be permitted to play the bidding system they grew up with. Secondly, Americans who play in international events would now be able to exercise their brains at home, instead of merely coasting as big fishes in a small (system) pond. 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 Fri May 11 17:08:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B75KR13130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 17:05:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4B75At13124 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 17:05:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f4B74Yt22681 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 03:04:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200105110704.f4B74Yt22681@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 03:04:34 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3AF8FDE2.649A85B8@village.uunet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at May 09, 2001 10:20:50 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:20:50 +0200 > From: Herman De Wael > > > > competitive bridge experience who hasn't seen a player of Mr. Garozzo's > > stature make a beginner-level error? > > > > Of course he does, perhaps a bit less than I do, but neither > of us should be (and is) ruled against as if we've made a > beginner-type error in a claim. > A beginner, however, is much more likely to make a > beginner-type error. Should we rule their claim as if they > were Garozzo ? > The thing that bothers me is that this is a condoned form of protecting the better players and treating players inequitably. The better players are encouraged to claim and claim poorly because they'll be protected from making "irrational" plays or careless mistakes. If they play a hand out, they may get lazy and make a careless mistake. If they claim and get lazy, they'll be protected. If they don't claim and get lazy, they may lose a trick. It encourages them when lazy to claim and they'll be protected. It encourages them to claim and doesn't encourage them to claim well, just to claim because they'll be protected from careless mistakes. A lower level player knows that if they claim poorly, they'll lose tricks, so it prevents them from claiming. Sometimes even when they have a claim, they don't want to make it because they "know" if anything goes wrong, they'll be ruled against. More importantly, they've seen better players make a claim and get away with it and be protected, but if they make the same claim, they aren't...they're penalized for making a poor claim on some standard they can't figure out. I don't think it is fair to treat players inequitably and to encourage players to think that they are being treated unfairly. There should be a standard for resolving things that doesn't protect the better players from bad mistakes and bad claims more than it protects the lesser players. If Garozzo had the trump A and three side winners and claimed "all high" with one outstanding trump-x against John "Flight C" Doe and two hands later, Mr. Doe makes the same claim and gets a different ruling, why is this fair? -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 17:16:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B7GXk13225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 17:16:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4B7GEt13218 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 17:16:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f4B7Fck22774 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 03:15:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200105110715.f4B7Fck22774@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 03:15:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Kent" at May 10, 2001 10:38:21 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Kent" > Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:38:21 -0400 > > >From: Ted Ying > > The remainder of this reply is based on the supposition that the GCC is in > effect for the event in question. If not, please disregard the following > snide comments. > David, Thanks for the Oh so friendly response. Nice to know that a lurker can feel free to make a comment about something and be treated so nicely here. I made the mistake of reading the ACBL Alert Chart instead of the GCC when checking up on my case of an opening NT showing both minors. You are correct in your obnoxious reply that I had the answers that I needed had I looked in the right place. However, I still think that there are times when the ACBL alert procedure is not so clear and having heard some of the responses from floor directors at the regional and NABC level, I'm likely not the only one (having heard conflicting responses about certain bids at those levels). -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 18:05:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B85ak13612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:05:36 +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 f4B85St13608 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:05:30 +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 KAA28897; Fri, 11 May 2001 10:01:27 +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 KAA21782; Fri, 11 May 2001 10:04:32 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010511100836.00826500@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:08:36 +0200 To: , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Polish Club 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 23:41 10/05/01 -0400, Glen Ashton wrote: >ACBL members can already play Polish club (but not 2D shows 5-5, suits >unknown) - my Polish partner and I played Polish club yesterday and last >weekend. > AG : Polish Club isn't such an intricated system, and it surely doesn't create huge, unexpected problems to opponents. In fact, it has one of the lowest average openings of all 'Club systems'. I don't see why it should be restricted. Even the 2D opening (55 including at least 1 major, below opening) is easily tackled by methods similar to defenses to Multi 2D (after all, one major-suit length is known). In Belgium, 2D severely restrited, and I'm wondreing why, because if 2D only meant 'one 5-card major, below opening', which is vaguer still, it would be tolerated. This being said, there are often, in round-robins, much more complicated systems than Polish Club. Perhaps the Editorialist aimed at the wrong target. 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 May 11 18:19:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B8IrP14663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:18:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4B8IPt14586 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:18:26 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id CBB002A4C5C; Fri, 11 May 2001 10:17:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id BC4492A4C7B for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 10:17:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 30063 invoked from network); 11 May 2001 08:17:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 11 May 2001 08:17:54 -0000 Message-ID: <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:17:03 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 71cbeacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Final of the Belgian team cup (8 teams), so no beginners > here : > > 3NT, one trick taken (HA), 3 tricks lost, to the aces and > king of diamonds and the ace of clubs, LHO on lead, time > pressure. > > AK85 > - > -- > KQJ85- > > JT3 > -K5 > QT-- > 94- > > (played cards indicated with -) > Declarer claims 10 tricks, without much more of a statement, > but it is clear he intends to make 2 spades, 5 clubs, and 2 > red tricks. > > TD ? Hi, I was intending to start my post with the praise of DBclaims but changed my mind. :-) OK, back to our "moutons". :-) If LHO exits with the red card then declrarer will take his red winners pitching his two spades from dummy and then will take the rest. This amounts to ten tricks (5C + 2C [together with the ace he already took) + 1D + 2S). If East plays a club for instance then there is an easy way of assuring the contract by playing a spade to the jack. The question is: is South so good that any other play (AS, KS, low spade for instance) is irrational for him? I dunno. He's no beginner, OK, but this is not enough. You, Herman, and the AC know the chap; therefore you are far better placed to answer this question than anyone on BLML, I guess. So "just made" if South is good enough, "one down" otherwise. I never let South take an overtrick. Konrad Ciborowski Krako'w, Poland -----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A----------------- Lepsze wiadomosci z kraju i z zagranicy. Nie wierzysz? Sprawdz - http://wiadomosci.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 18:46:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B8kdN17418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:46:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4B8kSt17414 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:46:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA27597 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 10:46:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA03810 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 10:46:02 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:46:02 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Polish Club Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 11 May 2001 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > And [Larry Cohen's] bug-bear, the Polish Club, Cohen made the same complaint after 1998 WBF open pairs in Lille. I can imagine that the first time one plays against a pair playing Polish Club, one may have some problems understanding the system. The fact that Cohen doesn't speak Polish or Russian won't help here either. However, Poland is in the top 5 bridge nations and it is likely that there will be more matches between Cohen and Polish pairs. I really cannot understand that a top-pro like Cohen doesn't spend $10 and an afternoon to read the book and learn the basics of his opponents' methods. > In Australia, many expatriate Poles and some native Aussies play > Polish Club unrestricted by ABF fiat, even in country congress > competitions. Polish club (except for the Wilkosz 2D) is GCC legal in the US. > Familiarity in defending against the method is thus easily gained. I think this is the point that Cohen and Rubens are missing completely: in most other countries, people play a variety of methods even in club games. Thus a new, talented, player, starting in low level events, will gain experience in defending against all these methods and by the time he starts to play in WBF events, he is prepared. Cohen and Rubens, OTOH, only play against opponents using some variation of 2/1 and thus have to start from scratch with their defences when entering a WBF event. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 19:52:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4B9psV19940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 19:51:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4B9pSt19935 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 19:51:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4B9p3q05207 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 10:51:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:51 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim 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: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > Final of the Belgian team cup (8 teams), so no beginners > here : > > 3NT, one trick taken (HA), 3 tricks lost, to the aces and > king of diamonds and the ace of clubs, LHO on lead, time > pressure. > > AK85 > - > -- > KQJ85- > > JT3 > -K5 > QT-- > 94- > > (played cards indicated with -) > Declarer claims 10 tricks, without much more of a statement, > but it is clear he intends to make 2 spades, 5 clubs, and 2 > red tricks. Presumably LHO was at least vaguely considering a black suit lead or there should be no objection to the claim (LHO may be a BL so check). A number of lines are available. 1. Low club lead - run it to the nine (ten tricks if LHO had Tx. 2. Low club lead - rise hoping drop T, otherwise duck a spade. 3. Low spade lead - run it to JT (ten tricks if LHO has SQx(xxx) 4. Low spade lead - rise, attempt to drop CT duck a spade if that fails. No doubt some of the above are pretty inferior in percentage terms but all seem reasonable enough to consider. I award 10 tricks only if LHO holds stiff CT and Qx(xxx) of spades. Otherwise I award 9. All these lines give at least 9 tricks 5. Low spade lead - rise, run all clubs. IMO this is irrational for a good player unless the S9 appears on the first spade trick or is thrown on 3rd/4th club. If otherwise convinced of the "rationality" of such an approach the ending below might be possible. A8x Qx 9x ? ? ? ? T K Q The spade x is lead to the T the S8 finessed on the return and South discards the wrong thing - 7 tricks. If declarer were a beginner then I would eliminate line one from consideration (IMO the beginner would find it too unnatural to be deemed normal) but consider line 5 normal up to a point. The beginner gets ten tricks when LHO has SQx and Cx while the expert only gets 9. The beginner gets 8 tricks if an opponent has SQ9xx and CT is guarded. I will take the time to explain to said beginner why I think he might squeeze himself, however I don't think a beginner would ever play spades that way so the position above doesn't apply. The beginner could perhaps play ace and another spade making the wrong discard for 8 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 Fri May 11 21:30:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BBFCv20431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 21:15:12 +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-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 f4BBEGt20425 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 21:14:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-241.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.241]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4BBDrn00205 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 13:13:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFAAFBD.73C51FC3@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 17:11:57 +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: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim References: <3.0.6.32.20010510163435.00824100@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 Sorry Alain, are you losing it or am I (usually the latter) ? It's teams play and 3 tricks have already been lost. alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > AG : it would not be rational to play KQ of clubs, then the spades, so that > you can't demand declarer to block himself. > that's true. > There are two rational lines of play : > a) AK of spades, spade. This will yield 2 losers if somebody has Q9xx, one > if somebody has Qxx(x), 0 if Q is bare or once guarded. > b) Clubs, then AK spades, spade. This will yield 2 losers if somebody has > Qxx(x), with or without the nine, because South wouldn't know what to > discard at trick 12 (so pretend he will go wrong), 0 if Q is bare or once > guarded. > How about c) A of spades (defender obviously returns spades, not any red suit), small spade = safety for 9 tricks. d) AK of clubs (10 doesn't drop), same line in spades. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 11 22:13:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BCCm824361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 22:12:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4BCCdt24321 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 22:12:40 +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 f4BCCKK60410 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 08:12:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010511080037.00b81be0@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, 11 May 2001 08:14:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim In-Reply-To: <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl> References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@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 04:17 AM 5/11/01, Konrad wrote: >The question is: is South so good that any other play (AS, KS, low >spade for instance) is irrational >for him? I dunno. He's no beginner, OK, but this is not enough. >You, Herman, and the AC know the chap; therefore you are far better >placed to answer this question >than anyone on BLML, I guess. >So "just made" if South is good enough, "one down" otherwise. I never >let South take an overtrick. At 05:51 AM 5/11/01, twm wrote: >If declarer were a beginner then I would eliminate line one from >consideration (IMO the beginner would find it too unnatural to be deemed >normal) but consider line 5 normal up to a point. The beginner gets ten >tricks when LHO has SQx and Cx while the expert only gets 9. The >beginner >gets 8 tricks if an opponent has SQ9xx and CT is guarded. I will take the >time to explain to said beginner why I think he might squeeze himself, >however I don't think a beginner would ever play spades that way so the >position above doesn't apply. The beginner could perhaps play ace and >another spade making the wrong discard for 8 tricks. South is a visitor from out of your area. Neither you nor anyone you might consult with has any idea how good a player he is. Your ruling? In the "What beginners do" thread we are debating whether the rules on faulty claims should be the same for everyone or should vary with the ability of the player making the claim. I submit that for those who hold the latter view my question is unanswerable. 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 May 11 23:11:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BDBMZ09731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 23:11:22 +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 f4BDB8t09678 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 23:11:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4BDAit05127 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:10:44 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:10 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim 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: <4.3.2.7.1.20010511080037.00b81be0@127.0.0.1> > South is a visitor from out of your area. Neither you nor anyone you > might consult with has any idea how good a player he is. Your ruling? First I ask him a few questions, then, if necessary, I try and find out how he played on some other hands (or watch him play the next few) then I make (and explain) a judgement, including the right to appeal. > In the "What beginners do" thread we are debating whether the rules on > faulty claims should be the same for everyone or should vary with the > ability of the player making the claim. I submit that for those who > hold the latter view my question is unanswerable. There is no doubt that the current laws require ability to be taken into account so if someone asks for opinions in a specific case that's what one does. Your question, while tricky, is not "unanswerable" since it must be answered. Under different (better?) laws it might be irrelevant 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 May 11 23:21:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BDLYs12552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 23:21:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BDLCt12485 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 23:21:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id GAA19186 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 06:20:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Polish Club Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:23:55 -0400 Message-ID: <001001c0da1d$a0abe320$7d04e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have few comments related to this thread. At one point in time, I was pretty firmly convinced that restrictions regarding bidding systems were limiting the ability of US teams to prepare for play in International matches. Over time, I have begun to change my mind on this subject. I still believe that the typical American professional is often quite poorly prepared to face a wide variety of bidding styles compared to his counter parts from elsewhere in the world. However, at this point in time, I believe that the main culprit is the homogenization of bridge in the US. For good or bad, American Bridge very much seems to be dominated by a "herd" mentality. Even if the floodgates were opened regarding bidding methods, I don't think many US players would deviate from Standard American. Case in point, it is very much possible to play a Polish Club variant, even in GCC events. [Its necessary to play a standard 2D/2H/2S opening structure, but the core elements of the system remain] However, virtually no players take the opportunity to do so. The world will simply need to learn to accept that fact that Americans tend to have simple and parochial views which we expect to be able to impose on everyone else. True, this causes some degree of stress at times. In the UN, the recent expulsion of the United States from the Commission on Human Rights was a very interesting development. I doubt that any similar measures will occur in the case of International Bridge [It is much easier to simply wait for the ACBL to drift way into geriatric obscurity] Regardless, I will note once again that Polish Club is not a distinct system but rather a family of systems. While Matula's books provides a good description of one particular variant of Polish Club, it is by no means a suitable reference for other versions. I took the opportunity to check some of my old world champuionship books. The Poles fielded two pairs playing "Polish Club" in Yokohama in 1991. Gawrys and Lasocki played (essentially) the same system described by Matula. However, Martens and Szymanowksi played a weak NT, extremely weak 1D/1H/1S openings and a STRONG 2C opening. There is no way that simply reading the Matula book can be considered to be an adequate preparation to face multiple system variants. Its disingenuous to suggest otherwise. At the same time, I don't think that the nuances of Polish 1C are any more complicated than those surrounding a Precision 1D opening. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOvvn6rFdMFbo8dHHEQKndwCeKKzwpHL9EvNRk8PPRE+zM4F+0kIAoMTB J1YWgjBW6OTSwN4lb2cvADEN =/zBr -----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 May 12 00:30:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BEKWk27861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:20:32 +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 f4BEJtt27839 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:19:56 +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 14yDlW-000PGV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:19:38 +0000 Message-ID: <9VqhVcAvQ++6EwHk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:07:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <3AF8FBAD.CB0501E4@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AF8FBAD.CB0501E4@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 once again, Gordon, for mailing publicly what you sent >me privately, but I really did not understand why you don't >let the world share your opinion. It is a perfectly valid >one and I have great respect for it. If more people share >this opinion, perhaps it is the correct way to proceed. Please do not post emails without the writer's permission. It is very bad Netiquette. Just write to Gordon and ask his permission. Perhaps he had a reason why he did not want it to be posted. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 00:42:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BEgWZ28012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:42:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe60.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.195]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BEgIt28006 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:42:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 May 2001 07:41:56 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.230] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B835@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><3AEFCC09.E54895D1@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:42:17 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2001 14:41:56.0197 (UTC) FILETIME=[86D42150:01C0DA28] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bid out of turn | Roger Pewick writes | >From: David Stevenson | >| Roger Pewick writes | >| >From: Herman De Wael | | >| >| In my experience, what happens at the table is that the TD | >| >| arrives, asks "how can I help you", and the player will say | >| >| "I didn't notice the 1Di and opened 1He". No mind reading | >| >| required. | | >| >On what basis is the player's partner entitled to a communication | >not | >| >by bid or play? In this case, to the 'fact' that he did not | >realize | >| >the presence of the opening bid [OOT] and that 1H was intended as | >an | >| >opening bid as opposed to an overcall. | >| > | >| >It is my view that communicating other than by bids and plays is | >not | >| >bridge, and demanding or even encouraging players to do so is | >| >deleterious to the pastime. | | >| Do you *really* think a TD asking "How can I help you?" is | >deleterious | >| to the game of bridge? | | >I think that if players have learned that revealing one's | >motivation/thinking in response to such a question is appropriate then | >there is a problem. And if adjudicators think it is appropriate there | >is a bad problem. Am I wrong to so think? | | You have completely lost me. The Director comes to the table, says | "How can I help you?" and you made a post that suggested this is bad for | the game. Now you have made an even stranger post, which certainly does | not answer the question. | | If I understand you correctly, when your LHO leads out of turn, the | Director arrives and says "How can I help?" you are suggesting refusing | to answer. | | Why? | | -- | David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ I did not mean to lose you, David. You come to the table and a player says he wants to correct his call. You review the auction and look at his hand and rule, 'Go ahead, there is no penalty.' Good procedure? Of course not. Why? Because inferences can be made from the connection between the inspection and the ruling. The director should not want to create inferences. The point is this. If the director asks, 'How may I help?' And he believes that it is appropriate for the player to respond enumerating his logic or thinking, that is a bad problem of a sort similar to the above. And if the player believes it is appropriate, the supposition is that he learned it to be so from experiences like the above. The law compels the player to obey the director. So if the director instructs the player to tell him his thinking the player must do so. And if it was in fact inappropriate for the director to ask, not only have the players been damaged, but the Game as well. So, I was not suggesting that players not respond to the director. I was saying that if the director asks for facts he better not believe he has asked for opinions; and the players had better not either as they should respond with facts. 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 Sat May 12 00:45:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BEMLS27878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:22:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BELht27872 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:21:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f4BELRh06464 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 10:21:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200105111421.f4BELRh06464@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish Club To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:21:27 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" at May 11, 2001 10:46:02 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes: > > > On Fri, 11 May 2001 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > And [Larry Cohen's] bug-bear, the Polish Club, > > Cohen made the same complaint after 1998 WBF open pairs in Lille. > > I can imagine that the first time one plays against a pair playing Polish > Club, one may have some problems understanding the system. The fact that > Cohen doesn't speak Polish or Russian won't help here either. However, > Poland is in the top 5 bridge nations and it is likely that there will be > more matches between Cohen and Polish pairs. I really cannot understand > that a top-pro like Cohen doesn't spend $10 and an afternoon to read the > book and learn the basics of his opponents' methods. In fact he had access to a resource most of us don't. Chip Martel was the coach for the US team. Martel has done the work required to play against the Polish club. There was a thread in RGB a few years back where Martel talked of having methods against the Polish Club that he was very confident of. With a certain amount of reason to be. Martel-Stansby played all 64 boards against Balicki-Zmudzinsky. The Poles had 14 1C openings and Martel-Stansy outscored them 43-3. Anyhow Martel wouldn't be too specific on RGB about their methods but you have to believe that if Berkowitz-Cohen were unprepared for the Poles it's because they didn't make adequate use of the resources they had available. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 01:00:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BF04e28117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 01:00:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BExtt28108 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:59:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-86-52.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.86.52]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4BExTH12456 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 15:59:30 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000601c0da2a$f5809460$3456063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20010511100836.00826500@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish Club Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:03:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: 11 May 2001 09:08 Subject: RE: [BLML] Polish Club > At 23:41 10/05/01 -0400, Glen Ashton wrote: > >ACBL members can already play Polish > > club (but not 2D shows 5-5, suits unknown) > > - my Polish partner and I played Polish club > > yesterday and last weekend. > > > > AG : Polish Club isn't such an intricated system, > and it surely doesn't create huge, unexpected > problems to opponents. In fact, it has one of the > lowest average openings of all 'Club systems'. > I don't see why it should be restricted. Even the > 2D opening (55 including at least 1 major, below > opening) is easily tackled by methods similar to > defenses to Multi 2D (after all, one major-suit > length is known). In Belgium, 2D severely restrited, > and I'm wondreing why, because if 2D only meant > 'one 5-card major, below opening', which is vaguer > still, it would be tolerated. > > This being said, there are often, in round-robins, > much more complicated systems than Polish Club. > Perhaps the Editorialist aimed at the wrong target. > > Regards, > > Alain. > +=+ We might note that the 2D would be Brown Sticker if it could be under average strength; in that case defences could be consulted at the table in WBF or EBL Category 1 and 2 events while in Cat 3 events, which include all pairs events, a Brown Sticker convention is not permitted. ~ 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 May 12 01:00:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BEKUi27859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:20:30 +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 f4BEJqt27834 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:19:53 +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 14yDlS-000G9j-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:19:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:38:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Legality and hard feelings References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes >The director went away looking perplexed and sought out the DIC. About two >minutes later he returned, informed declarer he wasn't entitled to the >information, and let my partner return. It is vital that the Director made this quite clear. >My question to the list is not so much about what the law says -- but >rather how I, as a player, can best handle the situation to avoid a> >making an enemy and b> being left with such a bad taste in my mouth I >half >wish I'd given in and just told declarer my distribution. You would not have made a friend by telling him what was in your hand, believe me, and you would not have wanted to. Perhaps you should have asked him if he would like a look in your hand as well? :) > Likewise, how >best as a director to defuse this situation if I am called to it. Being able to answer completely obvious questions without being reminded have helped, certainly. As I suggested above, the only thing the Director really needed to do, having let the situation get nearly out of hand, is to make absolutely clear what is allowed. He should also have reminded them about the CC regs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 01:03:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BF2uQ28151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 01:02:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f4BF2mt28147 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 01:02:49 +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 14yER4-0003K9-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 15:02:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:05:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl>, Konrad Ciborowski writes > > >Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Final of the Belgian team cup (8 teams), so no beginners >> here : >> >> 3NT, one trick taken (HA), 3 tricks lost, to the aces and >> king of diamonds and the ace of clubs, LHO on lead, time >> pressure. >> >> AK85 >> - >> -- >> KQJ85- >> >> JT3 >> -K5 >> QT-- >> 94- >> >> (played cards indicated with -) >> Declarer claims 10 tricks, without much more of a statement, >> but it is clear he intends to make 2 spades, 5 clubs, and 2 >> red tricks. If it is clear what he's doing then any line other than "Give up a S to the Q" is irrational. I think it's a different species from AQ9xx facing KTxx which is my yardstick for *any* player where I rule 1 trick to the oppo when Jxxx is over the AQ9xx. 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 May 12 01:15:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BEKd227863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:20:40 +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-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 f4BEJqt27833 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:19:53 +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 14yDlV-000G9k-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:19:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:56:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mailing lists in general (was Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn ) References: <004301c0d719$6d11a100$21b6f1c3@kooijman> <200105081428.KAA22236@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200105081428.KAA22236@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother writes >On 7 May 2001 at 19:08, "ton kooijman" wrote: >>> >>>From: "Kooijman, A." >>> >>>(snip) >>> >>>>I would prefer more suggestions on how to improve the laws instead >>>of persisting in telling what the law >>>means because you (reader) want it to be so. > >Well, BLML (much to DWS's chagrin) is a forum for discussing both how >the Laws as written should be interpreted in "fall-through-the-cracks" >cases *and* how the Laws could be improved (both by rewording and by >reworking). I believe strongly that both are important and necessary; >that neither DWS's wish that we stick to the former (or, to be more >fair, wish that we not change from the former to the latter in the same >thread) and your frustration that we do not stick to the latter are >unhealthy opinions for BLML to accede to. It seems very unfair to say that I wish we would stick to interpretation when I say nothing of the sort. While it is true that you added something different in parentheses, to quote me in something that I have not said and do not believe is not helpful. I believe that BLML is good for interpretation, for general help, for looking forward. It is true that it would occasionally be more helpful if questions were answered, 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 Sat May 12 01:20:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BFK3o02390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 01:20:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BFJut02347 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 01:19:57 +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 IAA13406; Fri, 11 May 2001 08:19:37 -0700 Message-Id: <200105111519.IAA13406@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish Club In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 11 May 2001 12:55:04 +1000." Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 08:19:36 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > What Jeff Rubens should have suggested as a > solution is that the ACBL loosen its systems > restrictions, to be comparable with other Zones > and the WBF. . . . Secondly, Americans who play in > international events would now be able to > exercise their brains at home, instead of merely > coasting as big fishes in a small (system) pond. I don't buy this argument at all. Who says that ACBL events the only places where experts can exercise their brains? There's no prohibition against four experts agreeing to play a set match on OKBridge with whatever systems they choose. So if those experts really have a desire to practice defending against oddball systems, ACBL restrictions certainly aren't going to get in the way. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 01:45:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BEKUl27860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:20:30 +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-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 f4BEJst27837 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:19:55 +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 14yDlV-000Ng1-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:19:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:47:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish Club References: <3.0.6.32.20010511100836.00826500@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010511100836.00826500@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 23:41 10/05/01 -0400, Glen Ashton wrote: >>ACBL members can already play Polish club (but not 2D shows 5-5, suits >>unknown) - my Polish partner and I played Polish club yesterday and last >>weekend. >AG : Polish Club isn't such an intricated system, and it surely doesn't >create huge, unexpected problems to opponents. In fact, it has one of the >lowest average openings of all 'Club systems'. >I don't see why it should be restricted. What to restrict or permit in a particular area depends on other factors, notably historical development, as well as complexity. > Even the 2D opening (55 including >at least 1 major, below opening) is easily tackled by methods similar to >defenses to Multi 2D (after all, one major-suit length is known). In >Belgium, 2D severely restrited, and I'm wondreing why, because if 2D only >meant 'one 5-card major, below opening', which is vaguer still, it would be >tolerated. > >This being said, there are often, in round-robins, much more complicated >systems than Polish Club. Perhaps the Editorialist aimed at the wrong target. My guess is that North Americans do not realise Polish club can be fairly simple. I remember my first WBF appeal, where the Chairman talked about the difficulties for the poor American opponents who had to deal with an "incredibly complex opening". The "incredibly complex opening" was 2H to show a weak hand with hearts and spades, which is as simple an opening as you could wish to meet, far simpler than a better minor 1C, for example. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 02:00:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BFogI09713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 01:50:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4BFoCt09630 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 01:50:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-7.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.7]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4BFnpn20385 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 17:49:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFBD197.9D4DCBFE@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:48:39 +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: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <200105110704.f4B74Yt22681@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > > > > > The thing that bothers me is that this is a condoned form of > protecting the better players and treating players inequitably. no it is not. > The better players are encouraged to claim and claim poorly > because they'll be protected from making "irrational" plays > or careless mistakes. no they are not. > If they play a hand out, they may get > lazy and make a careless mistake. Indeed, and claiming is indeed a protection against it. And why not ? If you are certain that play is over, then by all means do say so. You are indeed rewarded by not having to spend another 5 minutes of stupid play, when it is in fact over. I do believe that this is a good thing, and so do you, or don't you claim at all ? > If they claim and get lazy, > they'll be protected. If they claim, they will be protected from suffering from laziness. Yes. > If they don't claim and get lazy, they > may lose a trick. It encourages them when lazy to claim and > they'll be protected. It encourages them to claim and doesn't > encourage them to claim well, just to claim because they'll > be protected from careless mistakes. > But that is not true. Not at all. In the Belgian claim I posted, yes, I want to protect the player from scoring 8 tricks in 3NT. I do not award him 10 tricks however, something he may well have gotten had he played on. So in that sense I do punish him for his bad claim. You, and many on this list, are apparently far away from real-life directing. We do not protect players, we award them the least of what they would have gotten at the table. But not less. And if this means that we protect them from revoking, then indeed we do. If you believe this is a bad thing, then please play a tournament where claiming is prohibited. Please time it. And please add one rule : if a player says to opponents that play shall stop - he must forfeit one trick. See how much you like being asked to follow suit to 13 high tricks. Claiming is good for bridge and any attempt to change the rules so as to be even more harsh on claimers than what the laws currently say, is bad for our sport. > A lower level player knows that if they claim poorly, they'll > lose tricks, so it prevents them from claiming. A lower player doesn't claim. Far too little. During the recent national pairs semi-final, I had to tell a player that he had committed an infraction, by playing 5 extra tricks after he was already certain he had all 13. > Sometimes > even when they have a claim, they don't want to make it > because they "know" if anything goes wrong, they'll be ruled > against. More importantly, they've seen better players make > a claim and get away with it and be protected, but if they > make the same claim, they aren't...they're penalized for > making a poor claim on some standard they can't figure out. > Surely not : it is explained to them why their claim isn't valid. > I don't think it is fair to treat players inequitably and to > encourage players to think that they are being treated > unfairly. > If you really believe this, then you have not been playing bridge in the real world. This claiming stuff really is no problem but on blml. > There should be a standard for resolving things that doesn't > protect the better players from bad mistakes and bad claims > more than it protects the lesser players. > You are the only one that thinks the laws protects better players better than average ones. It really is not the case. > If Garozzo had the trump A and three side winners and claimed > "all high" with one outstanding trump-x against John "Flight C" > Doe and two hands later, Mr. Doe makes the same claim and gets > a different ruling, why is this fair? > Why should that happen ? Either they get the same ruling, or the situations are not the same. Why should Garozzo not lose a trick if there is one out that he fails to mention. Do you really believe TD's are as gullible as that "Garozzo cannot fail to count to 13". Sorry Ted, for sounding harsh, but you really don't see that there is no problem here. The laws are good, and all we need is to get our standards at the same level. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 02:07:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BEKaK27862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:20:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BEJqt27835 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:19:53 +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 14yDlS-000PGV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:19:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:22:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Uncertain explanation 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 f4BEJwt27842 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >>David Stevenson (Fri 04 May 2001 02:33) writes: >>>Brambledown writes >>>From a club game last night: >>>Dealer N, NSV >>> >>> K Q 7 5 2 >>> A K 6 >>> 8 >>> A K 10 3 >>> >>> J 10 6 3 9 >>> 5 4 2 J 9 8 7 >>> J 5 3 2 A K Q 10 4 >>> J 6 9 4 2 >>> >>> A 8 4 >>> Q 10 3 >>> 9 7 6 >>> Q 8 7 5 >>> >>>N: 2N. 19-20 bal (may contain singleton and/or 5 card suit) >>>E: 3D. Alerted and explained by W as: "We play ASTRO over 1N and I >>>*think* we've agreed to play it over 2N as well in which case it shows 5-4 >>>in spades and another suit BUT I'm really not sure". >>>S (after some further thought): Dble >>>All pass. >> >> I appreciate that this is not an answer to the question, but we should >>try to publicise as far as we can the importance of calling the TD in >>possible MI cases at the earliest possible opportunity. In this case, >>if South had called the TD before he had called, and explained his >>difficulty, the TD would have sent West away from the table, and asked >>East if he knew what he E/W agreement was. If East said he knew, then >>he would have invited East to tell South. Note that the TD must not >>bully East into telling them what he thought if there is no agreement. > >This is an interesting argument, which raises more questions. Since South >could have called the TD before his first call but didn't, are you going to >dismiss or be less sympathetic to the NS claim for damage? If not, then >although it may be a 'good thing', it's not likely to be in South's interest >to call the TD at that stage. If OTOH you are, the argument is presumably >that any uncertainty in an explanation is an irregularity, that once >attention has been drawn to it the TD must be called (L9B1) and that failure >to do this may damage the NOS (à la Brighton #3). Applied rigorously this >would IMO cause chaos. I reckon that at least half a dozen times during an >evening's play I hear an explanation including the words "I think", "maybe", >"possibly", "I'm not sure, but.." or some other dilution of the explanation >being given. I do not believe that it would be practical to insist that >whenever this happens the TD must be called so that he can send a player >away from the table while enquiries are made. Practical? But your reply is not a practical one. In at least seven of the half a dozen replies the answer is adequate. In the cited case the player knew the answer he had received was inadequate and he really needed to know more. Of course he should call the Director at such times. But it would be foolish to suggest he calls the Director every time he hears such an answer: that would be impractical. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 02:12:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BG9iA10936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 02:09:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4BG9Zt10931 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 02:09:37 +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 SAA03793; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:05:40 +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 SAA11819; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:08:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010511181248.0082b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:12:48 +0200 To: "Richard Willey" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Polish Club In-Reply-To: <001001c0da1d$a0abe320$7d04e080@isi.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:23 11/05/01 -0400, Richard Willey wrote: > >Case in point, it is very much possible to play a Polish Club >variant, even in GCC events. [Its necessary to play a standard >2D/2H/2S opening structure, but the core elements of the system >remain] AG : very easy. You switch 2D and 2M, that is, 2D is Multi, 2H = hearts and a minor, 2S = spades and another. >Regardless, I will note once again that Polish Club is not a distinct >system but rather a family of systems. While Matula's books provides >a good description of one particular variant of Polish Club, it is by >no means a suitable reference for other versions. AG : I would call a 'Polish Club' any system using 5-card majors and natural 1D (either 3+ or 4+), where the 1C opening : a) is forcing b) may contain a variety of strong hands c) but may also be your standard 3+ (or 2+) card flat hand outside 1NT range, or club-based hand with no more that a minimum opening d) gets mainly natural responses, apart from an ambiguous 1D >At the same time, I don't think that the nuances of Polish 1C are any >more complicated than those surrounding a Precision 1D opening. AG : that's the point ! Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 02:15:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BGF0b10985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 02:15:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4BGEnt10980 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 02:14:50 +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 RAA02471; Fri, 11 May 2001 17:56:54 +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 SAA08588; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:00:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010511180403.00829300@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:04:03 +0200 To: Ted Ying , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <200105110704.f4B74Yt22681@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <3AF8FDE2.649A85B8@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 03:04 11/05/01 -0400, Ted Ying wrote: >The thing that bothers me is that this is a condoned form of >protecting the better players and treating players inequitably. >The better players are encouraged to claim and claim poorly >because they'll be protected from making "irrational" plays >or careless mistakes. If they play a hand out, they may get >lazy and make a careless mistake. If they claim and get lazy, >they'll be protected. If they don't claim and get lazy, they >may lose a trick. It encourages them when lazy to claim and >they'll be protected. AG : did I hear somedoby in the background whisper 'England vs Belgium' ? (BEG) >A lower level player knows that if they claim poorly, they'll >lose tricks, so it prevents them from claiming. Sometimes >even when they have a claim, they don't want to make it >because they "know" if anything goes wrong, they'll be ruled >against. More importantly, they've seen better players make >a claim and get away with it and be protected AG : I've even heard a slightly imperfect claim (tabling A10xx vs KQ98x without stating 'K first') being condoned by the TD because 'this is a good-level tournament, so do you expect him to go wrong ?', that is, assessing the probability of going wrong based, not on the level of the player (which is dubious as many pointed out), but on the value of the field. > >If Garozzo had the trump A and three side winners and claimed >"all high" with one outstanding trump-x against John "Flight C" >Doe and two hands later, Mr. Doe makes the same claim and gets >a different ruling, why is this fair? AG : no, they won't get different rulings, because anybody, even Garozzo, could have forgotten the outstanding trump. This is not the kind of cases where some of us want to apply a distinction. One possible case, I guess, would be determining whether the player would block himself. 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 May 12 02:15:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BFpVN09801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 01:51:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4BFoOt09672 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 01:50:25 +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 LAA07194 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 11:39:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105111539.LAA07194@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish Club Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 11:39:14 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 11 May 2001 at 12:55, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >In the May 2001 Editorial of The Bridge World, >Roger Bielawski wrote: > >>In his tendentious and self-serving series of >>articles on the Olympiad (January through April >>issues), Larry Cohen complains that the United >>States and England were at a disadvantage in >>their semifinal matches against Poland and >>Italy because of the latter two teams' highly >>unusual methods. Those systems may be >>unfamiliar to the author, but none are >>classified as "HUM" by the World Bridge >>Federation. And his bug-bear, the Polish Club, >>is no more artificial than the version of >>Precision used by Berkowitz and Cohen. In >>fact, the Italian and Polish systems are fairly >>common in large parts of Europe, where >>techniques such as two-over-one game- >>forcing are virtually unknown. > >[big snip] > >Jeff Rubens' suggested solution to the familiarity >problem was to further restrict allowed systems >in at least some World Championships. (Was he >implying that the *familiarity* criterion for a restricted >allowable system was *familiar to an ACBL >player*, so two-over-one game forcing would be >automatically permitted in his proposed system- >restricted World Championships, but that the >Polish Club and even the Nottingham Club would >be forbidden?) > When this came up on rgb a few months ago, we got a lot of the debate. As a proponent of system freedom in the ACBL (I'm looking forward to frequent "is this legal" grumbling and director calls next weekend in Ottawa when Pd and I show up with our Mid-chart and ultra-aggressive opening system) I can still find a couple of Larry Cohen's arguments useful (even if I disagree with them). from http://groups.google.com/groups?start=40&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=ad9b71918ed455cb,249&rnum=45&ic=1&selm=n4f96toj9sd47jngr3bfldqg615pg7uep0%404ax.com (sorry about the wrapping) [Begin Larry Cohen] 1) I'm sorry if my writing sounded like "sour grapes." I tried to be balanced when I pointed out: b) there is a good case to permit "foreign" methods so that science can march on. 2) By calling them "foreign" methods, I thought I was using a cute play on words. In ACBL (North America), there are no "Highly Unusual Methods" permitted. So, to we North Americans, these methods are indeed "foreign." [in fact, even the ITT - the game that qualifies the USA teams - is played under the ACBL Super-Chart (Mid-Chart during the round-robin). This makes no sense to me - why restrict both what your teams can play in a WBF event, and remove more opportunity to see "foreign" methods. But Richard Willey is right - even if ITT was played under WBF rules (no HUM or BSC in RR) we'd probably see no difference. -mdf] 3) This issue about what to allow or not allow always seems to fall along national lines. It's a shame that a "WE (North America) against THEM (mostly Europe)" attitude seems to prevail. [IMSO, mostly because of 2) - mdf] 4) I truly believe that it makes it hard for bridge to progress when the public can't follow our championship events. I believe in limiting what should be allowed along the ACBL lines. BUT -- I definitely understand the other side of the argument. I like to see progress. Anyone who claims to know the answer is lying. There are 2 valid sides! [End Larry Cohen] About point 4 - I see his argument. However, I believe that a larger fraction of the bridge-playing population that follows championship events would be willing, even interested, to put the time into understading those "non-standard" systems (say a couple of paragraphs at the introduction of the teams, and occasional explanations of nuances) than the general B-P population. And I'm not the best player in the world - not by a long shot - and I often have trouble following the play as detailed in the vugraph. But I don't have problems with the systems, as explained by the commentators. Maybe I'm strange :-) More from Larry - and yes, Polish Club is GCC-legal with standard weak 2s: I've faced Polish club a few times, but I am totally confused by all of the nuances. I admit it! I never have a good feel for what my opponents have when they open 1C. Even though everything is documented and properly alerted, I feel that I would need a few YEARS of experience before I could compete on a level playing field with European experts that have faced this system their entire careers. It's the either/or nature of certain bids that makes them hard to play against. [end] To which I say "yes, I know - that's why we play them". My response at the time, which I still agree with, is "80-90% of that familiarity could probably be acquired in weeks on some on-line bridge service against a reasonable Polish pair willing to be beaten up for your benefit (and since you'd be you, you'd probably not even have to pay for the privilege)." which Larry thought (in email response) was a good suggestion . You can read the whole thread at http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=ad9b71918ed455cb,249&ic=1 Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 02:25:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BGPGO11060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 02:25:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BGP7t11056 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 02:25:08 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 8D43D2A4C07; Fri, 11 May 2001 17:34:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 7EF892A47E7 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 17:34:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 17641 invoked from network); 11 May 2001 15:34:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 11 May 2001 15:34:07 -0000 Message-ID: <3AFC063C.9050101@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 17:33:16 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish Club References: <001001c0da1d$a0abe320$7d04e080@isi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 7e5b6acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > Gawrys and Lasocki played (essentially) the same system described by > Matula. However, Martens and Szymanowksi played a weak NT, extremely > weak 1D/1H/1S openings and a STRONG 2C opening. > > There is no way that simply reading the Matula book can be considered > to be an adequate preparation to face multiple system variants. Its > disingenuous to suggest otherwise. There is some confusuion in terminology concerning The Polish Club. Sometimes this name is attributed to any system played by any Polish pair. Let's clarify the whole thing before we go on. Polish Club was created in the sixties by a group of experts of the Polish "Brydz" magazine. The system was called "Wspolny Jezyk" which means "Common Language". This is how the system is referred to by all Polish players ever since. This is the system described by Matula in his book (although the vast majority plays the 1D opening promising 5+cards rather then four [except for 4-4-1-4 and 4D-5C in the 11-14 zone]). The other system is "Nasz System" ("Our System") frequently referred to as "Strefa" ("Zone"). The 1D/H/P promise five cards and the strength limited only by the failure to open with 2C ART GF (they cover the "full zone" from passing to 2C). Here 1C always promises 2+C; this system is played mainly in Southern Poland especially in Cracow (in the eighties it was called "The Cracow System"). Martens, Kwiecien, Pszczola they all come from South. In Poland its obvious for everybody that these are *two diffierent* systems and most of the Polish players would be surprised that they are both referred to as "The Polish Club". The players from every ad hoc created pair always ask each other one question before they start playing: - Zone or Common? IM(H)O it is improper to call the second system the Polish Club. And it is not only the question of choosing the right words; the Martens - Szymanowski system is pretty close to standard (I've seen a lot of players playing 1C 2+ in the West) so I think that you don't need any specific defense; just use your favorite defense against 1C 3+ opening. The real Polish Club 1C opener does require a specific defense, on the other hand, as it may be made even with the club void. KonradCiborowski Krakow, Poland -----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A----------------- Lepsze wiadomosci z kraju i z zagranicy. Nie wierzysz? Sprawdz - http://wiadomosci.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 02:27:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BGQsc11082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 02:26:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BGQbt11075 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 02:26:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA01833; Fri, 11 May 2001 09:26:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "alain gottcheiner" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Polish Club Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 12:29:18 -0400 Message-ID: <001c01c0da37$86914e20$7d04e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010511181248.0082b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > At 09:23 11/05/01 -0400, Richard Willey wrote: > > > >Case in point, it is very much possible to play a Polish Club > >variant, even in GCC events. [Its necessary to play a standard > >2D/2H/2S opening structure, but the core elements of the system > >remain] > > AG : very easy. You switch 2D and 2M, that is, 2D is Multi, > 2H = hearts and > a minor, 2S = spades and another. The General Convention Chart which is used for most events here in the US does not allow multi-2D. The 2H and 2S opening that you suggest are both examples of conventional bids that are not permitted at this level of play. The ACBL GCC does allow 6. OPENING SUIT BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits. However, the minimum strength required is a bit high for most preemptive styles. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOvwTXbFdMFbo8dHHEQLahgCgttwRtKFA21rNbd6Y4+tO8KJXf8wAoIrR 8/NqP0eXAqwZgoXDwjgze2mi =+jgS -----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 May 12 03:52:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BHq2r11553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 03:52:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BHpit11549 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 03:51:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.15.169] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14yH4V-0003Ji-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 18:51:23 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c0da42$dd1c73e0$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Uncertain explanation Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:50:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: >Practical? But your reply is not a practical one. In at least seven of the half a dozen replies the answer is adequate. Whoever was responsible for the eighth should of course be shot. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 04:43:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BIhTL11854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 04:43:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4BIh5t11848 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 04:43:06 +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 NAA10222 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 13:42:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010511134047.007b3710@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:40:47 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <200105110704.f4B74Yt22681@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> References: <3AF8FDE2.649A85B8@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 03:04 AM 5/11/2001 -0400, Ted Ying wrote: >The thing that bothers me is that this is a condoned form of >protecting the better players and treating players inequitably. It is a form of protecting better players by not treating _them_ inequitably. >The better players are encouraged to claim and claim poorly >because they'll be protected from making "irrational" plays >or careless mistakes. If they play a hand out, they may get >lazy and make a careless mistake. If they claim and get lazy, But, as in David Burn's case, you neglect the very crucial fact that if declarer plays the hand out: a) he may well do something _good_ that will yield him extra tricks, and b) the defenders may well do something irrational that will cost them tricks. If Garozzo's declaring and I'm defending, who needs more protection against making a mistake? The only time a really good player is better off claiming is when he's sure he has all the rest of the tricks, or that his only losers are absolutely unavoidable. Even in those cases, he's better off claiming _with a complete claim statement_ than not, because the TD may _not_ think it's obvious he wouldn't have led the wrong honor first or something. >they'll be protected. If they don't claim and get lazy, they >may lose a trick. It encourages them when lazy to claim and >they'll be protected. It encourages them to claim and doesn't >encourage them to claim well, just to claim because they'll >be protected from careless mistakes. Again, there are _very_ few cases where an expert declarer will get more tricks by claiming badly than by claiming well. There are far more cases where he will get fewer. >A lower level player knows that if they claim poorly, they'll >lose tricks, so it prevents them from claiming. Sometimes >even when they have a claim, they don't want to make it >because they "know" if anything goes wrong, they'll be ruled But nothing that has been proposed so far will change this. Indeed, the proposal is that we say that they get the worst possible result that could have occurred by any play that is not 'irrational', and there's nothing in that change that is likely to benefit the poorer players at all. >against. More importantly, they've seen better players make >a claim and get away with it and be protected, but if they >make the same claim, they aren't...they're penalized for >making a poor claim on some standard they can't figure out. As I said to Eric L., I just haven't seen this. My experience is very limited, so there may be tons of people like this out there, but I just haven't seen people who complain that their claim was denied by Joe Pro's equal claim wasn't. It isn't a problem where I'm from. >I don't think it is fair to treat players inequitably and to I don't, either. And I think that the current discussion amounts to _strengthening_ the penalties against bad claims. Since more bad claims are made by bad players, this amounts to making things _tougher_ on the worse players, without affecting Garozzo much at all. >encourage players to think that they are being treated >unfairly. This, I think, is the real issue. If it is really true that a very large number of players feel like they are treated unfairly in claims cases because better players [or "more important" players like officials] get better rulings in the same situations, and if changing the claim law will make them feel better about this while at the same time not mucking up the game by frightening people off claiming altogether, then I'm for the change. I'm not convinced of either of those things, but I think this is the key argument. >There should be a standard for resolving things that doesn't >protect the better players from bad mistakes and bad claims >more than it protects the lesser players. > >If Garozzo had the trump A and three side winners and claimed >"all high" with one outstanding trump-x against John "Flight C" >Doe and two hands later, Mr. Doe makes the same claim and gets >a different ruling, why is this fair? It isn't. And I wouldn't give a different ruling here at all. > -Ted. Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 05:52:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BJpoc18411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 05:51:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4BJpdt18404 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 05:51:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-49-243.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.49.243]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4BJpCH20901 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 20:51:12 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <005a01c0da53$bacfdfa0$f3317bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <001001c0da1d$a0abe320$7d04e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish Club Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:50:05 +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: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:23 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Polish Club > > At one point in time, I was pretty firmly convinced that > restrictions regarding bidding systems were limiting > the ability of US teams to prepare for play in International > matches. Over time, I have begun to change my mind on > this subject. > > I still believe that the typical American professional is > often quite poorly prepared to face a wide variety of > bidding styles compared to his counter parts from > elsewhere in the world. However, at this point in time, > I believe that the main culprit is the homogenization > of bridge in the US. For good or bad, American Bridge > very much seems to be dominated by a "herd" mentality. > Even if the floodgates were opened regarding bidding > methods, I don't think many US players would deviate > from Standard American. > +=+ The best American Bridge players are still fine players. That they succeed a little less often these days is down to the simple fact that amongst bridge players internationally they now compete with numbers that are as good as, and sometimes better than, they are. Led by the Poles, the French, and the Italians, with contributions from other parts, the world has caught up. Some have found this hard to accept. There are two approaches to international play. Most, I think, sit down to play after only a superficial scan of what other people play, some - not only from the USA - find out the detail of the methods they will meet and prepare themselves diligently for the encounter. The one approach is probably less successful than the other, but it is a matter of choice - or more often, maybe, of opportunity. The one complaint that I have heard from leading players concerns the incomplete disclosure of their methods by some players. But would you deny me if I were to suggest that those questioned include some North American experts who have guarded the inner workings of their methods jealously? My view is that if the ACBL thinks it best to regulate a complication-free domestic tournament scene, it is its right to do so. Internationally I welcome the fact that disclosure has improved vastly; there is more to be done. Subject to this, those who appear in international tournaments must expect to meet whatever international regulations allow. For the coming EBL Championships the first HUM card has just been submitted. ~ 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 May 12 06:00:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BJsvu18515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 05:54:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BJs6t18496 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 05:54:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f4BJrSt02000 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 15:53:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:53:28 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3AFBD197.9D4DCBFE@village.uunet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at May 11, 2001 01:48:39 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Beware, this response is *LONG*. I'm really amazed. I had thought that BLML was rather open-minded. Now, twice in two days, I de-lurk on this list and am met with two very snide, sarcastic and down-right rude responses. Is common courtesy so outmoded on the network? Perhaps in Belgium this is considered a typical response, but your nasty tone is just unwarranted and ill-mannered. > Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:48:39 +0200 > From: Herman De Wael > > Ted Ying wrote: > > > > > > > > > The thing that bothers me is that this is a condoned form of > > protecting the better players and treating players inequitably. > > no it is not. > Perhaps in your world, but it is on this side of the pond. The point of my post is that when TD's take into account the general level of a player in deciding irrational plays for a given offender. The laws are not equal for all players and they should be. In the case of mistaken claims, there should be no difference for the level of players. A good player making a bad claim should be treated the same as a bad player making a bad claim and vice versa. > > The better players are encouraged to claim and claim poorly > > because they'll be protected from making "irrational" plays > > or careless mistakes. > > no they are not. > Again, in your omniscience, I'm sure you're aware of all TD rulings in all games world-wide. I'm sorry to have disagreed with you, oh worldly one. > > If they play a hand out, they may get > > lazy and make a careless mistake. > > Indeed, and claiming is indeed a protection against it. > And why not ? > If you are certain that play is over, then by all means do > say so. > You are indeed rewarded by not having to spend another 5 > minutes of stupid play, when it is in fact over. > I do believe that this is a good thing, and so do you, or > don't you claim at all ? > No, I'm not saying that claiming is bad and I do claim. However, I make sure that I make a detailed order of play when I do claim. If my detailed order of play yields a mistake, I concede the tricks. I expect that when I make a mistake in my claim, that I'll be punished the same as if someone of one of my students' level had made the same mistake or if someone of Garozzo's level had made the mistake. > > If they claim and get lazy, > > they'll be protected. > > If they claim, they will be protected from suffering from > laziness. Yes. > > > If they don't claim and get lazy, they > > may lose a trick. It encourages them when lazy to claim and > > they'll be protected. It encourages them to claim and doesn't > > encourage them to claim well, just to claim because they'll > > be protected from careless mistakes. > > > > But that is not true. Not at all. > In the Belgian claim I posted, yes, I want to protect the > player from scoring 8 tricks in 3NT. I do not award him 10 > tricks however, something he may well have gotten had he > played on. So in that sense I do punish him for his bad > claim. > > You, and many on this list, are apparently far away from > real-life directing. We do not protect players, we award > them the least of what they would have gotten at the table. > But not less. > And if this means that we protect them from revoking, then > indeed we do. If you believe this is a bad thing, then > please play a tournament where claiming is prohibited. > Please time it. And please add one rule : if a player says > to opponents that play shall stop - he must forfeit one > trick. See how much you like being asked to follow suit to > 13 high tricks. > Claiming is good for bridge and any attempt to change the > rules so as to be even more harsh on claimers than what the > laws currently say, is bad for our sport. > Apparently away from real-life directing? Up until 3 months ago, I spent the last 7 years directing a minimum of one 60+ table session a week. The local unit game runs three events on a weekly basis that total 60+ tables. I am the DIC when the main DIC is out-of-town at regionals or NABC's. I also direct at some club games. In the last 3 months or so, I've cut back to take a break, does that take me away from real-life directing? Your obnoxious condescending tone is inherent of people I would think are too far away from real-life directing. It sounds like you sit back and postulate what other people experience and think instead of doing yourself. Do you bother to play or direct, or do you just sit back and criticize those who do? Yes, claiming is good for bridge. I never once even declared that claiming is bad. You decided to read into my note whatever your decided I meant without reading. I say that claims should be regulated to award the same tricks no matter what the level of player, not that claiming should be discouraged. Perhaps if you got off your high horse, you might stop and read for a change. My contention when you say that "...we award them the least of what they would have gotten at the table. But not less." is that the least they would have gotten at the table is more for better players and less for lesser players. That is inequitable and as I pointed out, a condoned form of protecting the better players than the lesser. A better player will get more out of a bad claim that a lesser player will. This is not an absolute. It doesn't happen everytime, but it happens enough that it punishes weaker players from making bad claims more than it punishes stronger players. And that isn't a fair game. [...] > > I don't think it is fair to treat players inequitably and to > > encourage players to think that they are being treated > > unfairly. > > > > If you really believe this, then you have not been playing > bridge in the real world. > > This claiming stuff really is no problem but on blml. > Again, I'm amazed how well you know what the regional, sectional and local level of ACBL play is from Belgium. But then, I suppose the really good TD's are omniscient and do know everything. This is a problem that is getting worse and not better in the ACBL. Some of it is based on the poorer level of teaching at the lower levels in the novice and then non-LM level of play where they are not well-taught on claiming among other things so that when they merge into open, stratified, or higher ranked games, they don't know how to do things correctly. They are coddled more often than not in the novice games (I've seen bad claims which were allowed to make extra tricks because it was the "baby game"). But, the point is that there are cases where a bad claim is made and based on the level of player, the outcome may be a trick or two less for a weaker player than for a stronger player. I've seen this at tournament levels when I've been playing and not directing (in regionals and NABC's). > > There should be a standard for resolving things that doesn't > > protect the better players from bad mistakes and bad claims > > more than it protects the lesser players. > > > > You are the only one that thinks the laws protects better > players better than average ones. It really is not the > case. > No, I'm not. Perhaps you wish to be an ostrich and put your head in the sand, but there are others who do believe this. Insulting me won't change that fact. > > Sorry Ted, for sounding harsh, but you really don't see that > there is no problem here. The laws are good, and all we > need is to get our standards at the same level. > And that is the point. The standards for claims should be at the same level for all players. So there is no more of the Orwellian "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 06:08:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BK8G418981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 06:08:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BK80t18969 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 06:08:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.15.169] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14yJCO-0002Fz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 21:07:40 +0100 Message-ID: <005701c0da55$e6ef6d60$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:06:42 +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 Tim wrote: > In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010511080037.00b81be0@127.0.0.1> > > South is a visitor from out of your area. Neither you nor anyone you > > might consult with has any idea how good a player he is. Your ruling? > > First I ask him a few questions, then, if necessary, I try and find out > how he played on some other hands (or watch him play the next few) then I > make (and explain) a judgement, including the right to appeal. Now, just imagine doing this at the end of a club duplicate. "You wish to appeal our ruling that the play we have suggested you might make in a contested claim case was not irrational, merely careless, for the class of player to which you represent yourself as belonging? Very well - please answer the following questions on bridge technique, while we examine the results at your table during the evening, and make arrangements for you to be watched the next time you play. Write on no more than one side of the paper at any given time." Ridiculous? Of course, but apparently inevitable if we are to follow the current (ludicrous) policy of judging contested claims by subjective standards. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 06:24:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BKOEt19494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 06:24:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BKO3t19484 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 06:24:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.15.169] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14yJRr-0004aV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 21:23:40 +0100 Message-ID: <005d01c0da58$22c6b940$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200105110704.f4B74Yt22681@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3AFBD197.9D4DCBFE@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:22:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > Claiming is good for bridge and any attempt to change the > rules so as to be even more harsh on claimers than what the > laws currently say, is bad for our sport. This is a classic example of the fallacy known as "secundum quid". Correct claims are good for bridge; faulty claims are very bad for bridge indeed (cf England v Belgium, Maastricht 2000). This does not mean that "claiming is good for bridge". The way in which claims are made is currently very sloppy; the way in which faulty claims are handled is absurd; but because of the latter, the former will continue to happen. > This claiming stuff really is no problem but on blml. Tell that to the Belgians. And tell it to just about everyone who has ever walked away from one of my appeals committees on a contested claim thinking that the law is an ass. I get very fed up with explaining to these people that the law is indeed an ass, but it is the law. (Note: I do not rule on claims as I would like to rule; I rule according to the current asinine laws, as is my painful duty.) > You are the only one that thinks the laws protects better > players better than average ones. It really is not the > case. No, he is not - I think so too. It really is the case. > The laws are good, and all we > need is to get our standards at the same level. On the contrary. The laws are awful, and there is no way in which standards can be "got to the same level" while they remain awful. When the amendment of the footnote to the claim laws comes into effect, the laws will be even more awful, something that I had not considered a realistic possibility until a short while ago. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 07:19:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4BLIf504344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 07:18:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4BLIWt04339 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 07:18:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.15.169] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14yKIX-0000jO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 May 2001 22:18:05 +0100 Message-ID: <008101c0da5f$bcf51320$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 22:17:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Final of the Belgian team cup (8 teams), so no beginners > > here : > > > > 3NT, one trick taken (HA), 3 tricks lost, to the aces and > > king of diamonds and the ace of clubs, LHO on lead, time > > pressure. > > > > AK85 > > - > > -- > > KQJ85- > > > > JT3 > > -K5 > > QT-- > > 94- > > > > (played cards indicated with -) An interesting and puzzling way of presenting a mid-game position. It might make a challenging problem to attempt to reconstruct the original North-South hands and, given the sequence of plays which has led to the given diagram, the East-West hands. North-South presumably began with: AK85 x Jx KQJ85x J103 AK5 Q10xx 94x Now, three tricks have been lost to the top diamonds and the ace of clubs, and one trick has been taken with the ace of hearts. Clearly a heart was not led, which suggests that after an uninformative auction, West led a diamond from such as 4-5 in the red suits. Perhaps East won and continued diamonds, whereupon West switched belatedly to hearts, and South played a club which was taken by West's (no doubt singleton) ace. At any rate, here we are; if my reconstruction is correct, West started with a 3-4-5-1 shape and East with 3-5-2-3. West might or might not have been going to play a heart next, but before waiting for West to consider his options: > > Declarer claims 10 tricks, without much more of a statement, > > but it is clear he intends to make 2 spades, 5 clubs, and 2 > > red tricks. If it's clear to you, then no doubt it was clear to him also. How he imagined he was going to make those tricks with no entry to his red-suit winners is wholly beyond me, but that's all right. The currently popular interpretation of the laws on claims is that because what South was doing is patently impossible, his "claim statement has broken down" (as if it could ever have got started), and the director will be wheeled in to prevent this idiot from doing anything stupid. > > TD ? "How can I help? Ah, yes - as usual, you have made a claim statement that is an obvious joke, and now you wish me to play the hand for you. Well, I have the highest respect for your rationality, despite the fact that only a lunatic would claim the rest in this position, so I am going to deem that you would have made nine tricks if allowed to continue to play the hand. After all, it is clear that you can create a spade entry to hand with the loss of only one more trick, and no one - especially a player in the final of the Belgian Cup - would play off the ace and king of spades on a black-suit shift from West." [KC] > I was intending to start my post with the praise of DBclaims but changed > my mind. :-) No hard feelings. At least. not for the moment, but I have yet to deal with the rest of your analysis: > OK, back to our "moutons". :-) > If LHO exits with the red card then declrarer will take his red winners > pitching his two spades > from dummy and then will take the rest. This amounts to ten tricks (5C + > 2C [together with the > ace he already took) + 1D + 2S). So far, so good. > If East plays a club for instance then there is an easy way of assuring > the contract by playing > a spade to the jack. If East plays a club when West is on lead, the director might have a more complex problem to solve. > The question is: is South so good that any other play (AS, KS, low spade > for instance) is irrational > for him? You are anticipating the emergence of the new footnote; until then, there is no question of "irrational for him", merely of "irrational". Of course, declarer's claim might well have been based on the fact that the spades were all good - after all, he did claim the rest when he obviously hadn't got them unless the spades were actually all good - but remember that the TD has been called, so it no longer matters what South thought. (I should say at this point - perhaps I should have said it earlier - that my comments throughout are based on the premise that South is declarer; if instead North is playing the hand, then almost none of the foregoing is true, but if my reconstruction is correct, I do not believe that North would have been first to bid no trumps.) > So "just made" if South is good enough, "one down" otherwise. I never > let South take an overtrick. Good enough for what? That he has claimed the rest in this position is strong evidence to support the notion that he is not quite good enough to shuffle the boards for the next set, but that he is in the Belgian Cup final is strong evidence to support the notion that he realises: (a) that the queen of spades has not yet been played; (b) that to cash the ace and king of spades would be almost as poor a move as his claim. Let him make nine tricks by all means. But if he complains that he would of course have made ten when it transpired that clubs were 2-2, let him be taken from here to a place of execution, and hanged by the neck until he is dead. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 10:39:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4C0cVf25639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 10:38:31 +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 f4C0cIt25626 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 10:38:19 +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 14yNPw-0007Yq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:37:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:07:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <3AFBD197.9D4DCBFE@village.uunet.be> <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying writes >I'm really amazed. I had thought that BLML was rather open-minded. >Now, twice in two days, I de-lurk on this list and am met with >two very snide, sarcastic and down-right rude responses. Is common >courtesy so outmoded on the network? Perhaps in Belgium this is >considered a typical response, but your nasty tone is just unwarranted >and ill-mannered. There are a certain number of discourteous posts on BLML, that is true. Please accept my apologies for my friends on this list. >> From: Herman De Wael >> Ted Ying wrote: >> > The thing that bothers me is that this is a condoned form of >> > protecting the better players and treating players inequitably. >> no it is not. >Perhaps in your world, but it is on this side of the pond. >The point of my post is that when TD's take into account >the general level of a player in deciding irrational plays >for a given offender. The laws are not equal for all players >and they should be. In the case of mistaken claims, there >should be no difference for the level of players. A good >player making a bad claim should be treated the same as a >bad player making a bad claim and vice versa. OK, so we have two things to discuss here. One, should all players be treated equally for claims? Yes, and in my belief they are. They are assumed to play to their level. Two, does this benefit the better players? Yes, sometimes. It also benefits the poorer players on other occasions. Let us look at an example. If Garozzo holds xxx opposite AQJ and finesses, then claims without mentioning the finesse I shall not allow him to take it again. He knows perfectly well it may be failing next time. If a member of John's Japanese Club finesses, then claims, I shall assume she is taking the finesse again. She *knows* it is working, and unless John is at the table she is right. Certainly she will be assuming it for a claim. So in this case the poorer player gets a ruling in her favour which I might rule against Garozzo. It fits in with one of Stevenson's Rules: Good players know TDs rule in favour of poorer players. Poor players know TDs rule in favour of better players. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 10:39:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4C0cVe25638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 10:38:31 +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 f4C0cIt25625 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 10:38:19 +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 14yNPw-0007Yr-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:37:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:47:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish Club References: <001001c0da1d$a0abe320$7d04e080@isi.com> <3AFC063C.9050101@interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <3AFC063C.9050101@interia.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 >Richard Willey wrote: >> Gawrys and Lasocki played (essentially) the same system described by >> Matula. However, Martens and Szymanowksi played a weak NT, extremely >> weak 1D/1H/1S openings and a STRONG 2C opening. >> >> There is no way that simply reading the Matula book can be considered >> to be an adequate preparation to face multiple system variants. Its >> disingenuous to suggest otherwise. >There is some confusuion in terminology concerning The Polish Club. >Sometimes this name is attributed >to any system played by any Polish pair. Let's clarify the whole thing >before we go on. My understanding of Polish Club is that it includes an Either/Or club, ie that 1C can either be a good hand [say 16+ HCP] of various shapes, or weaker hands which are 4441, or balanced, or have long clubs. >Polish Club was created in the sixties by a group of experts of the >Polish "Brydz" magazine. >The system was called "Wspolny Jezyk" which means "Common Language". >This is how the system is referred to by all Polish players ever since. >This is the system described by Matula in his book (although the vast >majority plays >the 1D opening promising 5+cards rather then four [except for 4-4-1-4 and >4D-5C in the 11-14 zone]). This sounds like the Polish club. >The other system is "Nasz System" ("Our System") frequently referred to >as "Strefa" >("Zone"). The 1D/H/P promise five cards and the strength limited only by >the failure to >open with 2C ART GF (they cover the "full zone" from passing to 2C). >Here 1C always promises 2+C; this system is played mainly >in Southern Poland especially in Cracow (in the eighties it was called >"The Cracow System"). >Martens, Kwiecien, Pszczola they all come from South. This sounds like a simple short club system. I presume the strength for 1C is similar as for 1D/H/S? This system, if I have understood correctly, is not referred to as Polish club. >In Poland its obvious for everybody that these are *two diffierent* >systems and most of the Polish players >would be surprised that they are both referred to as "The Polish Club". If I have understood you correctly, the same presumption is made elsewhere: they are considered two different systems and only the first is the Polish club. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 10:51:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4C0pGf26029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 10:51:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f4C0p8t26021 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 10:51:09 +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 14yNcP-0009Tg-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 May 2001 01:50:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:49:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl> <008101c0da5f$bcf51320$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <008101c0da5f$bcf51320$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <008101c0da5f$bcf51320$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes # snip >> > >> > AK85 >> > - >> > -- >> > KQJ85- >> > >> > JT3 >> > -K5 >> > QT-- >> > 94- >> > >> > (played cards indicated with -) > snip > But if he complains that he would of >course have made ten when it transpired that clubs were 2-2, let him be >taken from here to a place of execution, and hanged by the neck until he >is dead. Bastinado is much more effective. I'm with you, David. Giving up a trick to the SQ resolves doubtful points as far as I'm concerned. > >David Burn >London, England -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 13:51:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4C3oUa03171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 13:50:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4C3oMt03130 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 13:50:23 +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 NAA14650; Sat, 12 May 2001 13:55:12 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Sat, 12 May 2001 13:41:44 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish Club To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Cc: "bthorp::.gov.au":"pcug.org.au:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:48:36 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/05/2001 01:46:11 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Larry Cohen wrote: [big snip] >>I truly believe that it makes it hard for bridge to progress when >>the public can't follow our championship events. I believe in limiting >>what should be allowed along the ACBL lines. BUT -- I definitely >>understand the other side of the argument. I like to see progress. >>Anyone who claims to know the answer is lying. There are 2 valid >>sides! [big snip] In reply to my initial posting on this thread, one of my partners, Brian Thorp wrote: >I agree with you Richard. The US restrictions on bidding systems are >too, too much. > >Firstly, I think they are self-defeating - the really good player has a >huge advantage over the bunnies if both are forced to use simple systems >and rely on judgement. Surely, one of the best hopes a poorer player >has against a gorilla (or, at least, against a would-be gorilla) is that >the gorilla tries to get too smart and shoots himself in the foot. >Also, when an unusual set of circumstances arise, the bunny may well do >well if the gorilla has to solve his problem by trying to remember if >the partnership has discussed the situation and then trying to guess >what his partner is likely to remember. Much better, on average, than >if the gorilla and partner relax and rely on bridge logic and judgement. > >Secondly, many intermediate players get their bridge kicks by >mis-designing, then mis-applying, home-grown gadgets such as the >Hoffmeister NT. Should they be turned off tournament bridge by the >wowsers, do-gooders and bureaucrats? Several decades ago, Sydney expert Bob Sebesfi devised a set of multi- twos, to which he gave the self-incriminating name Myxomatosis Two Bids. (Myxomatosis is a disease which kills rabbits.) The WBF would call these Myxo Twos Brown Sticker Conventions. However, Australian bunnies have not complained about how unfair Myxo Twos are. As biologists would put it, they have developed an immunity by grafting Myxo Twos on to their own systems! My expert partner and I were in the top seeded team in a recent country congress. My LOL opponent opened a Myxo Two, resulting in us scoring minus 530, and therefore finishing unplaced in the event. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 16:40:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4C6afQ24837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 16:36:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4C6aSt24767 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 16:36:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-75-115.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.75.115]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4C6a2H03391 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 07:36:02 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <005901c0daad$cfc27940$734b063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 07:34:39 +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 Mailing List Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 8:53 PM Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] > > I'm really amazed. I had thought that BLML was > rather open-minded. Now, twice in two days, I > de-lurk on this list and am met with two very snide, > sarcastic and down-right rude responses. Is common > courtesy so outmoded on the network? Perhaps in > Belgium this is considered a typical response, but > your nasty tone is just unwarranted and ill-mannered. > ---------- \x/ ----------- > Perhaps in your world, but it is on this side of the pond. > The point of my post is that when TD's take into account > the general level of a player in deciding irrational plays > for a given offender. The laws are not equal for all players > and they should be. In the case of mistaken claims, there > should be no difference for the level of players. A good > player making a bad claim should be treated the same as a > bad player making a bad claim and vice versa. > .+=+ Dear Ted, Think kindly of Herman: he fails to appreciate how his English style sometimes sounds. We can all be guilty of that on occasion; it just happens more excusably with some. I do not think it right to say that the law as it stands 'encourages' good players to make 'bad' claims. But the plain fact is that if a Director is to decide whether a given action would be irrational (with A playing against B) if he is considering the case for A he may decide it would be irrational for such a strong player to do it, but if he is considering the same case for B he may say it is not irrational for this weaker player. And this is the case wherever the law applies anywhere in the world in tournaments that bring together players of notably differing qualities. Further, in Tournament no.1 for high quality players actions may be deemed irrational that would not be considered irrational for the downtrodden poor consigned to Tournament no. 2. ~ 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 May 12 16:40:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4C6alV24876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 16:36:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4C6aSt24766 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 16:36:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-75-115.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.75.115]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4C6a0H03382 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 07:36:00 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <005801c0daad$cee9cc80$734b063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200105110704.f4B74Yt22681@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3AFBD197.9D4DCBFE@village.uunet.be> <005d01c0da58$22c6b940$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 06:58:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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: Friday, May 11, 2001 9:22 PM Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] > > On the contrary. The laws are awful, and there is > no way in which standards can be "got to the > same level" while they remain awful. When the > amendment of the footnote to the claim laws > comes into effect, the laws will be even more awful, . > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ er... are we talking about the interpretation of the present footnote which was confirmed on 20 August 2000 and still applies, or the next print of the laws which fits the wording of the footnote to that interpretation, or the proposal from me as to what we should do with the footnote in 2005? ~ 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 May 12 18:17:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4C8GwQ21212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 18:16:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4C8Gnt21204 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 18:16:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-82.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.82]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4C8GSn02373 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 10:16:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFC0CBD.D3738594@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:01:01 +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 Belgian Claim References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010511080037.00b81be0@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: > > > South is a visitor from out of your area. Neither you nor anyone you > might consult with has any idea how good a player he is. Your ruling? > > In the "What beginners do" thread we are debating whether the rules on > faulty claims should be the same for everyone or should vary with the > ability of the player making the claim. I submit that for those who > hold the latter view my question is unanswerable. > Look Eric, You can argue till you're blue in the face that the laws should not take the class of player into consideration. They do. As to your question about the player from out of the area, it is usually not very difficult for a director to judge the level of player that he is dealing with. So what if some decisions are hard ? Make them, allow them to appeal, whatever. But don't take an approach that is against the laws simply because the decision is hard. The easiest law is still : "if they revoke, burn them". But the is not what the Laws say. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 20:49:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4CAhXq24620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 20:43:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4CAP0t24182 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 20:26:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-55.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.55]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4CAMfn16722 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 12:22:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFD0366.908E32B2@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 11:33:26 +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] A Belgian Claim References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl> <008101c0da5f$bcf51320$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello David, (while reading your post I realized that you were being rather condescending of my and belgian abillities, but of course your brilliant command of the English language excuses a lot - no offence taken, neither personally, nor nationally). David Burn wrote: > > > > > > > 3NT, one trick taken (HA), 3 tricks lost, to the aces and > > > king of diamonds and the ace of clubs, LHO on lead, time > > > pressure. > > > > > > AK85 > > > - > > > -- > > > KQJ85- > > > > > > JT3 > > > -K5 > > > QT-- > > > 94- > > > > > > (played cards indicated with -) > > An interesting and puzzling way of presenting a mid-game position. It > might make a challenging problem to attempt to reconstruct the original > North-South hands and, given the sequence of plays which has led to the > given diagram, the East-West hands. North-South presumably began with: > > AK85 > x > Jx > KQJ85x > > J103 > AK5 > Q10xx > 94x > > Now, three tricks have been lost to the top diamonds and the ace of > clubs, and one trick has been taken with the ace of hearts. Clearly a > heart was not led, which suggests that after an uninformative auction, > West led a diamond from such as 4-5 in the red suits. Perhaps East won > and continued diamonds, whereupon West switched belatedly to hearts, and > South played a club which was taken by West's (no doubt singleton) ace. > At any rate, here we are; if my reconstruction is correct, West started > with a 3-4-5-1 shape and East with 3-5-2-3. West might or might not have > been going to play a heart next, but before waiting for West to consider > his options: > Your analysis is not correct. The play was Heart Jack to the Ace, Club three to the (indeed bare) ace in west, diamond to the king and diamond to the ace. West (in actual fact north, but turned to make south declarer) started with 2 QT9763 A7654 A, and east with Q9764 J84 K3 T76. > > > Declarer claims 10 tricks, without much more of a statement, > > > but it is clear he intends to make 2 spades, 5 clubs, and 2 > > > red tricks. > > If it's clear to you, then no doubt it was clear to him also. How he > imagined he was going to make those tricks with no entry to his red-suit > winners is wholly beyond me, but that's all right. Well, he made a mistake. That does not prove he does not realize the queen of spades is out, or that he miscounted any suit. He claimed to fast, and he shall now no longer be deemed making 10 tricks, which he could easily have done if he had waited for west to return one of the reds. > The currently popular > interpretation of the laws on claims is that because what South was > doing is patently impossible, his "claim statement has broken down" (as > if it could ever have got started), and the director will be wheeled in > to prevent this idiot from doing anything stupid. > Why should that be any but the "currently popular view" of the laws. It is what the laws actually say. "unless failing to do so would be irrational". I am amazed about how you can continue to flaunt the laws as written. Why not simply discuss whether or not some line of play is irrational, rather than you insisting that since the claim was faulty, the player must now per force be deemed to make the irrational rational. > > > TD ? > > "How can I help? Ah, yes - as usual, you have made a claim statement > that is an obvious joke, and now you wish me to play the hand for you. Well, that is what the laws say. The opponents were trying to have declarer play on, and he correctly refused to do so. When asked what he would do, he came up with the line of playing small spade twice. Not that this matters of course. > Well, I have the highest respect for your rationality, despite the fact > that only a lunatic would claim the rest in this position, so I am going > to deem that you would have made nine tricks if allowed to continue to > play the hand. After all, it is clear that you can create a spade entry > to hand with the loss of only one more trick, and no one - especially a > player in the final of the Belgian Cup - would play off the ace and king > of spades on a black-suit shift from West." > Are you being sarcastic or not ? Do you believe any rational player would play off the top two spades ? I am not asking for a ruling under the "if they claim, burn them" principle, but an assessment of rational play. > [KC] > > I was intending to start my post with the praise of DBclaims but > changed > > my mind. :-) > > No hard feelings. At least. not for the moment, but I have yet to deal > with the rest of your analysis: > > > OK, back to our "moutons". :-) > > If LHO exits with the red card then declrarer will take his red > winners > > pitching his two spades > > from dummy and then will take the rest. This amounts to ten tricks (5C > + > > 2C [together with the > > ace he already took) + 1D + 2S). > > So far, so good. > And of course, since we must rule doubtful points against claimer, that means play shall continue with a spade (west has no more clubs, so we need no longer look at that possibility). > > If East plays a club for instance then there is an easy way of > assuring > > the contract by playing > > a spade to the jack. > > If East plays a club when West is on lead, the director might have a > more complex problem to solve. > exactly. > > The question is: is South so good that any other play (AS, KS, low > spade > > for instance) is irrational > > for him? > > You are anticipating the emergence of the new footnote; until then, > there is no question of "irrational for him", merely of "irrational". You know David, that the footnote does indeed have to be interpreted as such. > Of > course, declarer's claim might well have been based on the fact that the > spades were all good - after all, he did claim the rest when he > obviously hadn't got them unless the spades were actually all good - but > remember that the TD has been called, so it no longer matters what South > thought. But of course it is important to determine what South thought. I am convinced (as were opponents) that South thought he had 9 top tricks in hand, and this was true except for the communication between them. If I had any inkling that South had thought the Spade queen had gone, I would of course and with no problem have ruled 1 (or even more) down. > (I should say at this point - perhaps I should have said it > earlier - that my comments throughout are based on the premise that > South is declarer; if instead North is playing the hand, then almost > none of the foregoing is true, but if my reconstruction is correct, I do > not believe that North would have been first to bid no trumps.) > I had put South as declarer, as per normal practice. In fact, he was west. > > So "just made" if South is good enough, "one down" otherwise. I never > > let South take an overtrick. > > Good enough for what? That he has claimed the rest in this position is > strong evidence to support the notion that he is not quite good enough > to shuffle the boards for the next set, but that he is in the Belgian > Cup final is strong evidence to support the notion that he realises: > (a) > that the queen of spades has not yet been played; (b) that to cash the > ace and king of spades would be almost as poor a move as his claim. Let > him make nine tricks by all means. But if he complains that he would of > course have made ten when it transpired that clubs were 2-2, let him be > taken from here to a place of execution, and hanged by the neck until he > is dead. > I agree with that last statement as well. I would not have given him 10 tricks if the 10 of clubs had come down, as the line of letting the spade return run is IMO a normal one. But I did analyse the play of him cashing one club to see. King of clubs, then small spade does not pose any problems, since he still has a club to return to the queen. I also analysed and rejected 2 top clubs and then a small spade. I found it to be irrational. Maybe I was not harsh enough there. You see David, you may kid, but maybe you would have made the same ruling as I did. Please blml, realize that although DB continues to argue that the claim laws should be reworked, there is no real problem about the application of the claim laws as they currently are. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 22:41:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4CCeQB28678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 22:40:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [212.61.26.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4CCd1t28653 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 22:39:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm16d39.iae.nl [212.61.2.230]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id AA2E920F08 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 14:38:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00a101c0dae0$5decbfa0$e6023dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Law 21 or not? Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:35:38 +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 West North East South 2NT 3D 3NT pass pass pass 3D was alerted and south explained on request: both majors. However the NS pair has not made any agreement on 3D and north has a long diamond suit. Law 75 describes the correct procedure but north having the lead summoned in good faith the TD and informed him about the mistaken explanation. So south has now UI. Is the TD in principle still obliged to apply Law 21? Ben -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 12 23:03:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4CD1pD29172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 23:01:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4CD1et29164 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 23:01:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial3.isi.com [192.103.52.194]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id GAA10173 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 06:01:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Polish Club Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 09:04:23 -0400 Message-ID: <000501c0dae4$10cf65c0$c23467c0@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > >The other system is "Nasz System" ("Our System") frequently > >> referred to > >as "Strefa" > >("Zone"). The 1D/H/P promise five cards and the strength > limited only by > >the failure to > >open with 2C ART GF (they cover the "full zone" from passing to > >2C). Here 1C always promises 2+C; this system is played mainly > >in Southern Poland especially in Cracow (in the eighties it > was called > >"The Cracow System"). > >Martens, Kwiecien, Pszczola they all come from South. > > This sounds like a simple short club system. I presume the > strength for 1C is similar as for 1D/H/S? This system, if I have > understood correctly, is not referred to as Polish club. I will simply note in passing that the Yokohama World Championship book refers to both systems as Polish Club. I will strive to use appropriate nomenclature in the future. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOv001rFdMFbo8dHHEQJVTQCfTKDffXUvo5o4xQqoAiTqT+1d188AnRNG y0Fjy2wcSkFvtaNo2/xQnX9F =wYxJ -----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 May 12 23:10:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4CDAdV29383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 May 2001 23:10:39 +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-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 f4CDASt29374 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 23:10:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-55.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.55]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4CAMTn16690 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 12:22:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFCFE51.1F61A432@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 11:11:45 +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: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > > Beware, this response is *LONG*. > > I'm really amazed. I had thought that BLML was rather open-minded. > Now, twice in two days, I de-lurk on this list and am met with > two very snide, sarcastic and down-right rude responses. Is common > courtesy so outmoded on the network? Perhaps in Belgium this is > considered a typical response, but your nasty tone is just unwarranted > and ill-mannered. > It may please the readers of blml that I have sent apologies to Ted for those remarks that were more personal than what I intended. I apologize for the tone and the words but not for the meaning. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 13 00:35:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4CEYel26857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 May 2001 00:34:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4CEYQt26779 for ; Sun, 13 May 2001 00:34:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-68.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.68]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 82B2522E21E for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 15:34:03 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:30:48 +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: <3AFA50C8.E62E5A43@village.uunet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael (Thu 10 May 2001 09:27) writes: >>Brambledown wrote: >> >Grant Sterling (Wed 09 May 2001 21:12) asks: >> > PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE CLAIMS: >> > Contract is 3 NT. Opening lead is a small diamond. >> > AKxx QJx >> > KQJ xxxx >> > xx AKx >> > Kxxx Axx >> > >> > CASE ONE: >> > Declarer sees the diamond lead and immediately says "I'll >> >take my 9 top tricks in spades, diamonds and clubs and give you the >> >rest". Now, in fact, he only has 8 top tricks--he has miscounted. >> >The defense objects. >> >> Unless you have become blinded by the sort of dogma bandied >about in BLML, >> this case IMO is trivial. >> Declarer has made a valid claim specifying that he intends to >take his top >> tricks in Ss, Ds &Cs and concede the rest. The fact that he thinks this >> yields 9 tricks is irrelevant. He has, in fact claimed the first eight >> tricks and conceded the last five. If he wishes to retract his >> concession of any of these tricks, he will have to make his case >> under L71 if he can. > >Sorry Chas, just plain wrong. Sorry Herman, just beg to differ. I suppose I should no longer be surprised by BLML posters' extraordinary talent for creating mountains out of molehills. Here we have a hand where we might expect a bright beginner at his first bridge lesson routinely to collect ten tricks. Declarer has claimed and specified a line of play which is so poor that you consider it irrational. If he had concluded his claim with "making eight tricks", that would have ended the matter - claim uncontested, eight tricks awarded. When he claims nine tricks the defence rightly say "Not on that line" and call the TD. Now you are suggesting that it is appropriate for the TD to replace declarer's stated poor line with a more successful line on the basis that the worst rational line yields ten tricks, so that you award him the nine he has claimed. Supposing (a) that he had claimed ten tricks or (b) he had claimed seven tricks and when the opposition kindly pointed out that his line produced eight tricks he said "Sorry, I meant ten tricks"? Following the same reasoning, you would presumably argue that he should be awarded ten tricks in these cases. .>Grant's anaysis is perfect. >This is a claim where the stated line "breaks down". The claim does not break down - at least not before the end of trick 8 when declarer's stated line of play has expired and he has only eight tricks. Declarer is not permitted a claim in the form "I will play the hand this way if, and only if, it yields nine tricks, otherwise I may wish to play it some other way". If he says "I will make nine tricks, playing the hand this way", he is IMO committed to the stated line whether or not it makes the number of tricks claimed. If he subsequently says "Oh, doesn't that come to nine tricks, in that case I will play it an entirely different way", the TD should not accept this (L70D). Adam has pointed out that, depending on the lie of the opposing cards, it may be that after taking his eight tricks, declarer will inevitably come to a ninth or even a tenth trick, in which case L71 comes into play. Otherwise declarer should only be awarded the eight tricks his stated line richly deserves. To summarise: (1) I do not believe that, unless a slip of the tongue is involved, any line of play declarer states that he intends to play can be considered irrational. (2) I do not believe that the TD has the authority in any circumstance to substitute for declarer's stated legal line an alternative unstated more successful one. 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 May 13 00:35:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4CEYgk26870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 May 2001 00:34:42 +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 f4CEYQt26778 for ; Sun, 13 May 2001 00:34:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-68.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.68]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 89FF122E203 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 15:34:00 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Uncertain explanation Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:30:46 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal 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 11 May 2001 13:22) writes >>Brambledown writes >>>David Stevenson (Fri 04 May 2001 02:33) writes: >>>>Brambledown writes >>>>From a club game last night: >>>>Dealer N, NSV >>>> >>>> K Q 7 5 2 >>>> A K 6 >>>> 8 >>>> A K 10 3 >>>> >>>> J 10 6 3 9 >>>> 5 4 2 J 9 8 7 >>>> J 5 3 2 A K Q 10 4 >>>> J 6 9 4 2 >>>> >>>> A 8 4 >>>> Q 10 3 >>>> 9 7 6 >>>> Q 8 7 5 >>>> >>>>N: 2N. 19-20 bal (may contain singleton and/or 5 card suit) >>>>E: 3D. Alerted and explained by W as: "We play ASTRO over 1N and I >>>>*think* we've agreed to play it over 2N as well in which case >it shows 5-4 >>>>in spades and another suit BUT I'm really not sure". >>>>S (after some further thought): Dble >>>>All pass. >>> >>> I appreciate that this is not an answer to the question, but we should >>>try to publicise as far as we can the importance of calling the TD in >>>possible MI cases at the earliest possible opportunity. In this case, >>>if South had called the TD before he had called, and explained his >>>difficulty, the TD would have sent West away from the table, and asked >>>East if he knew what he E/W agreement was. If East said he knew, then >>>he would have invited East to tell South. Note that the TD must not >>>bully East into telling them what he thought if there is no agreement. >> >>This is an interesting argument, which raises more questions. Since South >>could have called the TD before his first call but didn't, are >you going to >>dismiss or be less sympathetic to the NS claim for damage? If >not, then >>although it may be a 'good thing', it's not likely to be in >South's interest >>to call the TD at that stage. If OTOH you are, the argument is >presumably >>that any uncertainty in an explanation is an irregularity, that once >>attention has been drawn to it the TD must be called (L9B1) and >that failure >>to do this may damage the NOS (à la Brighton #3). Applied >rigorously this >>would IMO cause chaos. I reckon that at least half a dozen >times during an >>evening's play I hear an explanation including the words "I >think", "maybe", >>"possibly", "I'm not sure, but.." or some other dilution of the >explanation >>being given. I do not believe that it would be practical to insist that >>whenever this happens the TD must be called so that he can send a player >>away from the table while enquiries are made. > > Practical? But your reply is not a practical one. In at least seven >of the half a dozen replies the answer is adequate. I don't understand this. I suggested that perhaps half a dozen times I receive a 'qualified' answer which clearly *could* result in damage. If, to avoid being considered to have 'dug my own grave', I am *required* to call the director (and you have not addressed that point) then that would IMO (and apparently yours) be impractical. 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 May 13 03:07:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4CH6rd26100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 May 2001 03:06:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4CH6gt26082 for ; Sun, 13 May 2001 03:06:43 +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 f4CH7QV23065 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 10:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002301c0db05$d3fa75a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010511080037.00b81be0@127.0.0.1> <3AFC0CBD.D3738594@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 10:06:00 -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: "Herman De Wael" > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > > South is a visitor from out of your area. Neither you nor anyone you > > might consult with has any idea how good a player he is. Your ruling? > > > > In the "What beginners do" thread we are debating whether the rules on > > faulty claims should be the same for everyone or should vary with the > > ability of the player making the claim. I submit that for those who > > hold the latter view my question is unanswerable. > > > > Look Eric, > You can argue till you're blue in the face that the laws > should not take the class of player into consideration. > They do. L16A doesn't, even though LAs are now treated in accordance with what unknown "peers" might do. > As to your question about the player from out of the area, > it is usually not very difficult for a director to judge the > level of player that he is dealing with. On a scale of 1 to 10, or what? It seems that the current scale is binary, weak-strong, which smacks of a commoner-peerage outlook. > Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 13 03:07:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4CH6uQ26106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 May 2001 03:06:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4CH6lt26092 for ; Sun, 13 May 2001 03:06:48 +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 f4CH7PV23055; Sat, 12 May 2001 10:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3AFBD197.9D4DCBFE@village.uunet.be> <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 09:56:37 -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" < > OK, so we have two things to discuss here. > > One, should all players be treated equally for claims? > > Yes, and in my belief they are. They are assumed to play to their > level. "Level" is not measurable. "For the class of player involved" has no place in an objective set of Laws. > > Two, does this benefit the better players? > > Yes, sometimes. It also benefits the poorer players on other > occasions. Let us look at an example. > > If Garozzo holds > > xxx opposite AQJ > > and finesses, then claims without mentioning the finesse I shall not > allow him to take it again. He knows perfectly well it may be failing > next time. As David knows, if the finesse is failing it must be taken again. > > If a member of John's Japanese Club finesses, then claims, I shall > assume she is taking the finesse again. She *knows* it is working, and > unless John is at the table she is right. Certainly she will be > assuming it for a claim. And what about players whose level is unknown? The old rule was so much simpler. If the finesse is on, it cannot be taken. If it is off, it must be taken. No need for mind reading. > > So in this case the poorer player gets a ruling in her favour which I > might rule against Garozzo. > "In this case," perhaps. I would prefer that all players be treated equally, as is appropriate for a classless society. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 13 22:20:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4DCJ6u00741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 May 2001 22:19:06 +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 f4DCIwt00699 for ; Sun, 13 May 2001 22:18:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4DCIVp07500 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 May 2001 13:18:31 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:18 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] 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: <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > > "Level" is not measurable. "For the class of player involved" has no > place in an objective set of Laws. It does currently have place however - in a footnote as I recall. For those who wish to see this changed I recommend a perusal of L69 of the current (1993) laws. Personally I find this a much better method. 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 May 14 06:44:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4DKgc924321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 06:42:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4DKgVt24317 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 06:42:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4DDrak03091 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 May 2001 13:53:36 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:43:32 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200105082044.f48Kio318126@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <200105090327.XAA08114@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <8KeeToBcZ0+6EwHD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8KeeToBcZ0+6EwHD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01051313533602.03044@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 11 May 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > Michael Farebrother writes > >On 8 May 2001 at 16:44, Ted Ying wrote: > > >>Well, many club players who don't have access to the web and don't > >>travel to tournaments, find it harder to get a hold of the 16-page > >>document and often ask the directors what is and isn't alertable. > > >True, but any club that doesn't have the 1 large page Alert chart > >available to their members (or better yet, posted somewhere), are > >mistreating those members. > > Recently someone at my local ACBL club asked me whether something was > alertable. She said she had no easy way of finding out. > > I went and looked at the large Alert Chart posted clearly on the wall, > and there it was perfectly clearly! Still, that showed how easy it was > for me to find out. And then you have to add the problems that occur when the director gives instructions which are contradictory to the chart. I play Precision with one partner, and was told by a club director (playing against him, after a hand) that negative doubles are not alertable over the 2C opening. Maybe they shouldn't be, but the alert chart clearly says that the negative double is not alertable when the opening bid is one of a suit. Now, I don't necessarily expect directors to memorize the chart, but they should check it before giving instructions I have had one other ruling which violates both the spirit and the letter of the alert chart. Responder to 1NT bid 2S, and opener announced "Transfer". Many players extend the principle of Announcements slightly beyond the original (such as announcing the range of NT bids other than openings and direct overcalls), which doesn't usually cause a problem. However, this pair plays 2S to sign off in either minor. We were not damaged but asked the director after the hand, and he said that "Transfer" was correct. This ruling makes the announcement useless, as I need to ask about the "Transfer" before bidding. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 14 07:53:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4DLqto24438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 07:52:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4DLqnt24434 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 07:52:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-028.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.220]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA10855 for ; Sun, 13 May 2001 22:52:20 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 13 May 2001 22:53:01 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0DBFF.764439A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 21 or not? Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 22:53:00 +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 Ben asked: West North East South 2NT 3D 3NT pass pass pass 3D was alerted and south explained on request: both majors. However the NS pair has not made any agreement on 3D and north has a long diamond suit. Law 75 describes the correct procedure but north having the lead summoned in good faith the TD and informed him about the mistaken explanation. So south has now UI. Is the TD in principle still obliged to apply Law 21? Ben Yes. 81C6. 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 May 14 14:52:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4E4pkE04511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:51:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4E4pft04487 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:51:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from ACCORDION2.acsys.anu.edu.au (accordion2.apac.edu.au [150.203.56.15]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11744 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:51:20 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010514145002.00ab4618@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 14:51:18 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [majordomo thought this was a bit too long... -Markus] At 02:45 PM 5/9/01, Grant wrote: >At 09:19 AM 5/9/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > > >For the same reason we rule revokes the first way and UI/MI/PP cases > >the other. The latter require some judgment about ("the class of") the > >player involved, but not (at least directly) with respect to bridge > >skill. UI adjudications depend on the OS's methods, partnership > >experience and bidding tendencies (we must make determinations about > >LAs and demonstrable suggestions). MI adjudications depend on > >partnership methods and experience (most especially when "implicit > > As the laws are currently written, we do. But why aren't you >fighting this? Why not simply say that "whenever there's MI the side >giving MI shall be penalized 500 points". Are something similar. No >need to do all this difficult judgmental work. > If mechanical procedures are preferable, then why not go for >the Burn school method of instituting them for everything? Because not all is black or white; grey exists. Some rulings are better made judgmentally; some mechanically. I find it entirely legitimate to debate which is appropriate for various areas of law, area by area. Faulty claims are an area where the exercise of judgment, IMO, causes more problems than it solves. In general, I prefer to allow TDs/ACs room for judgment in their rulings. I have never argued against the need for judgment per se. But I do argue against requiring the particular judgment of a player's level of bridge skill; this seems to cause more trouble than all of the other judgments we've mentioned (in UI or MI cases, or in giving PPs) put together. If you give a player an unfavorable ruling when another player in a similar situation got a favorable ruling, you do not offend the former by telling him "we decided that 4H was an LA in your bidding system but not in his", whereas you often do if what you have to say is "we decided he was a better player than you are". > >agreements" are involved). PPs, being essentially disciplinary in > >nature, must vary based on the offender's past history of warnings or > >penalties for similar offenses. But we would prefer to rule > >mechanically rather than being forced to make such judgments in > >situations where it is reasonable to do so, like revokes. Some of us > >believe that bad claims should be treated that way as well. > > I prefer to rule with judgment rather than be forced to rule >mechanically, except in cases where the infraction is so common and >deleterious that mechanical rules make the game better. > > >They do expect it. They expect -- correctly -- bad claim rulings to > >depend on purely subjective judgments by TDs or ACs as to the skill of > >the claimer. They expect -- not always correctly, but not entirely > >without some element of truth -- bias in these judgments. They expect > >that when they are in a dispute over a possibly faulty claim with a > >someone who is a buddy of the TD or AC chairman that they will be ruled > >against. They expect it, but they don't like it. > > OK, there's the problem. Your argument is that most or at least >many players expect to be ruled against on grounds of personal favoritism, >and so a mechanical penalty will make players feel better. That is an >argument I can understand. I don't agree with it for two reasons: > 1) I just haven't encountered it. Again, my experience is so >limited that this may be simply a result of my own lack of familiarity. > 2) I don't think the proposed rules change would solve it. Is it >'irrational' for me to play suits from the bottom up? For me to run all >my trumps and then play my side suits? For me to block suits or crash >honors? To lose track of my entries? Knowledgeable TDs on this list >have answered both 'yes' and 'no' to every single one of these problems. >Unless we re-write the laws so that every possible contingency is >explicitly dealt with, TDs will have to make those judgments, and >some players will think that they make them based on who the players are >rather than the merits of the cases. > 3) I think that players will be far more upset the first time >they make an imperfect claim [see more on this below] and receive a >catastrophic ruling, than they are upset when they dispute an imperfect >claim and the TD lets it go through. Well, some -- hopefully few -- players believe they get bad rulings because of conscious blatant favoritism. Of course, conscious blatant favoritism is so rare as to not be a major problem. But favoritism is a lot more subtle; with the best of intentions, mere mortals can't help thinking that their friends are better bridge players than people of objectively comparable ability whom they dislike. And, favoritism aside, there is surely lots of room for legitimate differences of opinion about any given player's level of ability. After all, if an objective panel could definitively determine players' relative levels of ability, why would we bother holding contests? And what of the unfortunate TDs and ACs who need to determine a player's level of ability in order to make a correct ruling who do not play favorites, are not unconsciously biased, are not merely mistaken, but just don't have a clue? Would anyone support a set of guidelines for bad claim rulings that suggested that there should be one set of standards, say, for players with under X master points, another for players with X-Y, and a third for players with over Y? I don't think so. Yet master points, however imperfect, are the closest we have to an objective measure of ability. If varying our rulings based on an objective measure of ability would be as ludicrous as it sounds, how then can varying our rulings based on a totally subjective measure of ability be better? > >At a local sectional this weekend my wife was playing 6NT and claimed > >at trick seven after taking the first six tricks: in hand with > >QJx/Kxx/-/x opposite -/AQxx/-/Axx; SQJ but not x winners, hearts not > >yet played, both opponents having followed to two rounds of clubs; she > >said, "I'll take all the tricks if either clubs or hearts are 3-3, > >otherwise you get the last trick." Opponents, having a blind spot, > >called the TD, arguing that if she tested both suits she'd be stuck in > >the dummy, and if she cashed her two spade tricks first she would have > >to guess which round suit to hold in dummy (hearts were 3-3, clubs > >4-2). The TD (after consultation with the DIC, even) ruled routinely > >that she got all the tricks [side question: does she get them all if > >her LHO is 4-4 in hearts and clubs, so that her intended line would > >have fallen into an automatic squeeze?]. But she had to threaten to > >throw our opponents out of the tournament after they accused her of > >disregarding the merits of their case and ruling automatically in favor > >of my wife (who happens to be the president of the tournament's SO) > >under cover of a determination that she was "good enough" to play > >correctly, whereas they would have received no such benefit of the > >doubt had they made a similar claim. > > In your case, I would have ruled that it would be irrational >to play that hand in such a way as to make fewer tricks. Do you >think that if irrationality irrespective of ability were made the >standard of claim adjudication, these particular opponents would have >thought my ruling was impartial? I think not--they would have been >just as convinced that they had been screwed, because they're clearly >the sort of people who think that whenever possible. These particular opponents stated to the TD that they believed that had the situation be reversed she would have ruled oppositely. Perhaps nothing could have shaken that belief. But I'd far prefer a law under which the TD could legitimately respond to such an accusation with, "Are you questioning my integrity?" rather than with, "Well, you might be right." > And, again, do you think they would feel differently if it >had been a UI or MI judgment? If not, then don't we have to overall >the UI and MI rules, too? Why not be an out-and-out Burnian? But they would feel differently. One is not demeaned by a relatively unfavorable ruling which is justified on the grounds of "we believe you are more experienced partnership than they are" as one is by one which is justified on the grounds of "we believe you are not as good players as they are". Most players do know enough about the UI and MI rules to understand and accept that rulings must depend on the level of experience of the partnership. But they believe that rulings should be the same for players regardless of level of ability. > Here's my case: > I have KTxx in hearts, no other points, and 2-4-5-2 distribution. >My partner opens 1H, RHO doubles, and I bid 2H. We end up getting a >good score when LHO plays me for having more points. Opponents call >the Director, complaining that I have psyched. [That psychic is legal >is irrelevant in their minds.] The TD says that with this bidding 2H >by me isn't even a psyche. My LHO remained absolutely convinced that >I had cheated and that the TD simply refused to hear the case because she >was biased in my favor. > My point is that people who are disposed to think that the TD >is biased will think so regardless of what law is at issue or how >the law is written. Some people will never believe that the game is fairly officiated no matter what we do. So what? What's important to us is the likelihood of disinterested third parties believing that they might be right. > >Some of us believe that eliminating subjective judgments, with their > >accompanying opportunity for and inevitable perception of bias in > >making rulings, wherever it is reasonable to do so, would be good for > >the game. > > But, again, I can understand that idea, but it leads to full- >fledged Burnianism. Call for an end to judgment in _all_ rulings, >not just for the elimination of 'class of player' from the claim >laws. And demand the elimination of 'irrational', too, because >that requires judgment to administer. [And get rid of L70c2.] Just >allow those who dispute claims to play the cards for claimer in any legal >way. FTR, I am not at all a "Burnian" when it comes to claims. David argues that all legal lines should be considered when adjudicating a bad claim. I believe that irrational lines should be excluded from consideration. I also believe that it is possible to come up with reasonable and consistent guidelines as to what constitutes an "irrational" line (although in practice, such guidelines would undoubtedly vary from one SO to another, not unlike those for "logical alternative"). Our views on the standards for considering lines are very different, but both lead to one set of standards for everyone, and we do agree that that would be a good thing. > >> Now the first change in my claim-adjudicating worldview, > the one > >>that screws the non-claimers out of their equity, at least has the > >>advantage of being so rare that it will likely have little effect. The > >>second change, though, is such that, if I thought victory was more > >>important than sportsmanship, I would dispute every single claim that > >>I ever had made against me again. Because if we allow in the idea that > >>'normal' includes all plays that a rank beginner would make at his > worst > >>moments, then I can find you a 'normal' line in virtually every > claim that > >>yields fewer tricks than the number claimed. > > > >When the claimers make proper and correct claim statements you will at > >best get nothing, and could eventually be penalized for repeatedly > >making frivolous director calls. When the claimers make improper or > >incorrect claim statements, they are committing an irregularity, and > >you *should* call the director every time (or, at least, cannot be > >faulted for doing so). > > I see a perfect claim statement about once a month. Maybe. >Virtually all claim statements are incomplete, for the obvious reason >that completing them would be a waste of time and an insult to the >opponents' intelligence. I have KQJx of a suit in dummy, and Ax in my >hand, and with all trumps out I claim the last 4 tricks. I am the most >stringent claimer I know but _even I_ don't make a claim statement >in these cases. But wait! I'm pretty sure Garozzo played a small >one to the King in this situation once when he was a baby! I know >Mrs. Guggenheim once had a brain fade and pulled out her losing >side suit deuce rather than play her 4 top winners at all. So my >opponents, at least by the version of the 'irrational' standard some seem >to hold, are entitled to 4 tricks, or at the very least 2. Not me. Failing to take four tricks on that holding would be clearly irrational IMO. But it would be no more irrational for Mrs. Guggenheim, who has such fits of irrationality about once a month, than it would be for Mr. Garozzo, who had such a fit once when he was a baby. Grant's position would seem to be the one that would award tricks to the opponents in this position, provided they were playing against a Mrs. Guggenheim who is known to occasionally have brain fades and block her suits. > Because we deal on this list only with difficult claims, people >sometimes seem to forget that most 'bad claims' are entirely routine >affairs that don't upset anybody. They have all the winners and don't >explicitly state the order they will play them in. Occasionally they >forget a trump, or forget that a weird distribution would wreck >their play, or forget that a sidesuit card is not high. To tell them >on such occasions that they will not only be losing the trick that >results from their mistake, but will also be deemed to have played out >the rest of the hand as if they were drooling morons, will not improve >the attitude of players of the game of bridge. > Yes, in a perfect world everyone claims perfectly, and we don't >even need a law for disputed claims. In the real world virtually >no-one claims perfectly, and penalizing imperfect claims will not >increase the number of perfect claims--it will scare most people away >from claiming at all. I agree that most claims are indeed "bad claims" in the Burnian sense -- that is why I am not a Burnian. David would indeed require that they be "deemed to have played out the rest of the hand as if they were drooling morons"; I would not. [Disclaimer: We are discussing my and what I believe to be David's opinions as to how the law ought to be written, not as to how the existing law should be applied.] Most of these are accepted because the opponents do not question the claimer's obvious intention. I have argued in the past, in opposition to David, that the laws on incorrect claims should apply only to genuinely incorrect claims, not to correct claims which have been incorrectly expressed. I have stated above that I would like to see Mrs. Guggenheim treated the same as Mr. Garozzo rather than more harshly, but in reality if my view were law Mrs. Guggenheim would probably be treated less harshly than Mr. Garozzo. That's because Mr. Garozzo, given his experience, should know how to state his claims correctly, therefore an oversight in the statement is far more likely to be evidence of an oversight in his claim than it would be in Mrs. Guggenheim's case. > >The "ordinary" (players', not TDs') view of claims is that "you" (the > >TD or AC) decide what you would like to happen and then make a > >determination that that is what "'would have happened'", thus resolving > >the case in favor of whichever party you are more favorably disposed > >towards. Given that, "destroying the oridnary view of claims" would, > >far from being a "very serious problem", actually be a very good thing. > > OK, again, if your perception is correct then this may be a good >thing to change. Even then, as I have said, I don't think it will >work. Grant is probably right to the extent that it won't work to change the opinions of the players who got ruled against in specific cases. But I believe it will work to change to opinions of players at large with regard to cases which do not affect them personally. Aggrieved players who have just "lost" a ruling in committee will naturally tend to feel singled out, and may not accept the statement "we would have made the same ruling for anybody", but others will accept such a statement -- provided it is true! I argue that that is a goal we should strive for. Every one of us who has ever been on an AC understands that rulings are made in the context of individual deals; it is totally inappropriate to allow a ruling to be affected by the state of the scores of the parties involved. So when, in the course of an event, we allow a claim for Mr. Garozzo that we don't allow for Mrs. Guggenheim on the grounds that the play attributed to Mrs. Guggenheim would have been irrational for a player of Mr. Garozzo's class, and Mrs. Guggenheim quite reasonably asks us, "Well, if Mr. Garozzo would have played that hand better than I would, how come he's having a 40% game and I'm having a 60% game?", how do we respond to her without undermining the legitimacy of the event as a test of bridge skill? [Final disclaimer: If my repeated contrasting of Mr. Garozzo and Mrs. Guggenheim appears to anyone to be sexist, please blame Mr. Garozzo's parents and Mr. Simon, not me, for their respective genders.] 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 May 14 17:04:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4E73Lk06918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:03:21 +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-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 f4E73Bt06909 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:03:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-16.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.16]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4E72jc13271 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 09:02:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFE9C18.B57F2FC2@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 16:37:13 +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] A Belgian Claim References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFCF5A3.78A9BB88@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry Roger, but you start from a totally wrong premise. You seem to believe that a player, when claiming, sets out a line of play that he must then follow to the letter. That is simply not the case. Consider the following alternative case. Suppose my declarer, without adding anything further, without even showing his cards, says "play is over". That is a claim, true ? It must be judged upon, true ? Do you really intend that player to receive 9 tricks, and my fellow who innocently adds that he will score 10 tricks, only 8 ? Do you see what I mean ? By saying that there are 10 tricks, my player has done nothing that would suggest that he must now certainly lpay for 10 tricks. After all, 9 tricks are all that he needs for his contract. Any "normal" line must be judged with that in mind. That was a very fundamental point, now to your mail. BTW, I really hate it when you send me such things in private. I do believe the list could benefit from this discussion. But having been warned about netiquette by David once, I shall not tempt him again. So please Roger, send this reply to the list. Roger Pewick wrote: > > > To take 10 tricks it is clear that declarer's hand must be entered. > This is the inference contained in the claim for it to be valid. For > defenders who see the hands it is irrational to lead a red card, no? > They would choose a black card, yes? > of course they do - points about 10 tricks dealt with above. > | I don't believe that this is the case. Declarer has claimed > | without realising that if north returns a black, he has no > | entry in hand for his top tricks. > > I made that point. > > | > There are two possible routes to declarer's hand that he can > force. > | > [1] the CT falls singleton and [2] the SQ falls singleton or > | > doubleton, > | > | no, there are three of them: > | [3] play small spade off the table twice (even after cashing > | the ace) > > To do so would produce 9 tricks, not 10. True? > and is that not all that he needs ? It is team play, remember. In pairs play, a line for 8/10 is "normal", so 8 tricks would be the ruling in pairs play. > | This third line is 100% for 9 tricks. > > The claim was for 10 tricks, no? Are there not positions possible for > the cards where 10 tricks can be forced. Is it not normal for he who > plans to take 10 tricks when it is possible to take 10 tricks by force > to act on the presumption that the cards lie favorable to win by > force? > No it is not. He was not under any impression that he could get 10 tricks after a spade return. He had not envisioned a spade return when claiming, that's for sure, but once he's on the table, he cannot fail to realize there are no routes to 10 tricks if he wants to make his contract. > Certainly it is normal for a player who sees that playing for 10 > tricks when doing so could result in 8 would select to guarantee 9. I did not believe you were of any other opinion. This is a principle we're discussing, not a bridge hand, i'm sure. > But in my mind the way the game ought to be played such a selection > can only be allowed when the contestant elects to play it out. But > here we have a claim and there is no more option to change the path > taken. > Yes, the laws explicitely allow this. No other line .. unless to do so would be irrational. Do you admit that it is irrational to play for 8 tricks here ? > In my mind the claim forbids undertaking any line that guarantees from > the outset that the claimed tricks can not be achieved against any > possible layout, while there is a possible lie of the cards where a > line could be successful. > You are mistaken. > Knowledgeable people assert that the law says the above is not so. So > I note here that it is my view that it would be better if it were so. > Why ? > Herman, in discussing claims you are noted for expressing great > 'compassion' for claimer. No, I am not. I believe I am ruling according to the laws and the intention of the lawmakers; I believe you and DB are expressing great contempt for "bad" claims. > But is it compassion you deliver? Or is it > treating contestants as children instead of players? If the cards > were played out, is there any compassion when the tricks are counted? If the cards were played out, are you in any doubt that this player would make 9 tricks ? Really, are you ? That's the whole point. This player did nothing more wrong than claiming too soon. Speaking before he had thought. He must pay, by the laws, the provided penalty : play ceases and he receives the least of all normal results. It is you who are treating this man as a felon. He has committed the terrible crime of speaking before thinking and he shall be judged to play irrationally afterwards. What is that terrible crime that you and DB are talking of ? > Surely not. The tricks were played and the outcome is certain. > Should it be any different after a claim? You say yes, but how can > it be valid? The laws provide a playing field that allow the cards to > control the destiny. It is the players' skill that defines what > happens during a trick and it is the rank of the cards that decide who > won the trick, nothing more. > Sorry Roger, do you really believe this player would play it out for 8 tricks, ever ? > Just what right does the director have to rule that deuces take aces, > merely because a player has claimed? This is what happens when a > claim is discarded so it is not followed to conclusion. You have been > asserting this for years and have asserted it here- and many believe > you. > > About claims I will tell you a part of my thinking- > > Is there any valid reason for entitling a player who has claimed a > second turn to get it right . I cannot think of one. The LAWS !!!!!!!!!! > But I can think > of reasons to entitle a player who has botched a claim the opportunity > to convince the director/ opponents what his claim requires, and > forbids, what is not normal, and what is irrational to not do. if you > are looking for a standard for ruling on busted claims that will yield > consistent results you are getting close to it right here. Well, the > world is convinced that such an approach is horrid, but I suspect that > David Burn might break a smile for a second or two. > But we are not ruling claims as per DB's wishes. We are ruling them as per the laws. > And for this claim- > > I have asserted that for a player who claims 9 tricks it would be > irrational to not take 9 tricks by ducking to his hand any return. > And further when W holds both black cards it would be irrational to > not take 10 tricks. > > This is entirely different when the claim is for 10 tricks. > But who ever said that the claim was for 10 tricks. At this moment, I cannot remember the exact wording of the claim, and it would lose in translation anyway. And does it really matter ? If he had simply said "contract fulfilled", and the claim were correct, would you not give him 10 tricks in stead of the 9 he apparently asked. All that matters is that play ceases and that the TD shall determine the result. > I surmised that your view of the correct ruling was that it would be > irrational for a declarer that can not guarantee an entry to not make > two different claims, the second one for 9 tricks. > > | I believe you are under the mistaken belief that if someone > | claims for 10 tricks, he must now play for 10 tricks. That > | is clearly not the case. Declarer has claimed 10 top > | tricks, > > btw, are you sure he claimed top tricks? Or was it 10 tricks? > What does it matter ? The claim was made, the play ceases, the claim is apparently invalid and the TD decidees how many tricks declarer shall make. If you think it is rational for this man to only play lines that can yield 10 tricks, then you are beyond me. Really Roger, what is so difficult about this principle ? There should really be only one question. Is it normal or irrational, for this player, in this situation, to realize that in order to make his contract, he should not lead the King of spades to the next trick. > | and that claim is clearly false. If we allow > | declarer to notice this > > I thought it was the opponents who are allowed to notice, and use it > to object! But to the point, it is not clearly false- merely > doubtful. If both black cards are onside and both drop, then the 10 > tricks are earned provided that the line of play claimed [play for 10 > tricks that does not depend on an unproven finesse or drop] is > adjudicated. > Now you are entering "strange claim" territory. In that case, the only line that corresponded to the claim statement was clearly irrational and yet it lead to the contract being made. Remember that in that case, I was the harsh one and y'all the "compassionate" ones. > | (and I am granting you that this is > | under discussion), we must allow him all normal lines. In > | team play, normal lines are those that lead to 9 tricks in > | 3NT, > > This is a silly notion wrt claims that is taken seriously. The words > are slippery I tell you. To contract by claim for ten tricks it is > normal to play for ten, not nine. How can you ever state something like that ! > I tell you this as well. It is the > procedure in L70 that makes guaranteeing nine tricks attractive when > there is the possibility of eight. So when one the first time > claimer 'ignores it' it surely is justice to rule on the claim. > What does that mean ? > | not those that lead to 8-10 tricks. We might argue if > | this declarer will notice this 100% line, and if he would do > | so in time to recover (I believe both are true), but we > | cannot impose on him a line that may yield 8 tricks if there > | is a line that yields 9 at 100%. > > | > therefore, for the black suit return it is normal to win > | > high in dummy. Test clubs first so as to retain an entry if the T > | > drops. If neither black card drops then it is irrational to not > cash > | > the clubs, and would be normal to keep the red suit stoppers. > > | No, because he still has 2 spade losers on the table. The > | only reason to cash the club king is to create an entry to > | the nine. After cashing the club king, declarer shall play > | small spade yet again. > > But the SQ could be stiff or doubleton, or the CT could be stiff. > That is why it is normal. If it was proven impossible for either of > those, then yes it would be irrational to not finesse. > Irrelevant since the premise is wrong. Declarer is not playing for 10 tricks, only for 9. > | > However, when T12 is lost to the SQ declarer will not know which > red > | > stopper to retain or will have a second spade loser so the defense > | > will have the last two tricks. However, it is also normal to > finesse > | > so if either black card is with East and would drop the losing > finesse > | > is adjudicated and thereafter it would be irrational to not score > 9 > | > tricks. Declarer makes 10 tricks only when W has both black cards > and > | > one of them drops. > | > > | > All presuming that declarer asserts that it would be irrational to > no > | > play that way. > | > > | > But doubtless, because there is no such entry guaranteed then > surely > | > the inferred claim of a direct entry must be discarded. And > therefore > | > it would be irrational to not adopt a line guaranteeing 9 instead > of > | > 10 tricks? > | > > | > | indeed. > | > | > Comment- declarer did not resolve the doubtful points of T5 by > play. > | > | so we rule doubtful points against him. Are you in doubt > | that he would notice the line of playing J10 of spades as a > | sure entry ? Are you in doubt that he would choose a safe 9 > | trick line over any that yields 8-10 ? > > Well, I doubt that he has forgotten his claim is for 10 tricks. > But he has no reason whatsoever to play for 10 tricks. > | I am not. > | > | > It is irrelevant that he could still guarantee his contract by > playing > | > for 9 tricks instead of claiming ten. If the claim was for 9 > tricks, > | > it would be irrational to not finesse the best black suit return- > and > | > if the finesse won then 10 tricks. > | > > | > cheers > | > roger pewick > | > | -- > | Herman DE WAEL > > roger Sorry Roger, but your premise is so false that I am at a loss for words! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 14 17:04:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4E73Nt06919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:03:23 +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 f4E73Ft06911 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:03:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-16.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.16]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4E72pc13330 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 09:02:51 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFE9FF2.ACB4E2F1@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 16:53:38 +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 out of turn References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: > > > > >Sorry Chas, just plain wrong. > > Sorry Herman, just beg to differ. I suppose I should no longer be > surprised by BLML posters' extraordinary talent for creating mountains out > of molehills. > no need to comment on this. > > .>Grant's anaysis is perfect. > >This is a claim where the stated line "breaks down". > > The claim does not break down - at least not before the end of trick 8 when Definition of "claim breaking down" : Point at which, to the player who has claimed, it becomes clear that the line that he has stated will not achieve the desired result. it is not the point at which the line, after being executed far too long by blindingly and irrationally following a claim statement, simply cannot be executed any more. No need to prove this, the words "claim breaking down" are mine, and I can tell you what they mean if I wish. This means that a claim can break down immediately after the next card is played. In the belgian case, I consider the claim to have broken down immediately after the spade is returned, or maybe only after the ace is taken and the trick is quitted. I consider it highly unlikely, to the point of irrational, for declarer to not notice that the line that he intended at the moment of his claim, is not valid. Now we can be argueing in any specific case, whether or not the declarer is absolutely certain of noticing that. I will be just as harsh as any in the making of this decision. But it seems to me, Chas, that you do not disagree with me on that, but that you depart with a view that it is absolutely impossible for any claimer who has had the misfortune of being too quick, to realize anything. I want you all to try the following thought experiment with any of the claims that you are uncertain of. Consider them again, but with claimer remaining absolutely silent. Now I know DB will then have him play all cards in the most inopportune manner, but that is not how claims are handled. In a private message, Roger has told me that the Belgian declarer is only allowed to play lines that have a possibility of 10 tricks in them, despite the fact that he's in 3NT in team play. If the claimer had said nothing, there would not be a ruling that way possible. Don't you see that you all are being more harsh on claimers that do state a line than on those that don't ? Well maybe you are not, since you would prefer claimers who say nothing to suffer even worse fates. But when have you last claimed with a complete statement ? Or if that is your habit (good on you), when have you last departed from it. Surely you do not utter a statement when in 7NT you put down 4 aces, kings, queens and a lone jack ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 14 18:00:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4E80Mi07098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 18:00:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4E80Gt07094 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 18:00:17 +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 XAA22947 for ; Sun, 13 May 2001 23:59:52 -0800 Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 23:59:12 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <3AFE9FF2.ACB4E2F1@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 13 May 2001, Herman De Wael wrote: > > I want you all to try the following thought experiment with > any of the claims that you are uncertain of. Consider them > again, but with claimer remaining absolutely silent. Now I > know DB will then have him play all cards in the most > inopportune manner, but that is not how claims are handled. > > In a private message, Roger has told me that the Belgian > declarer is only allowed to play lines that have a > possibility of 10 tricks in them, despite the fact that he's > in 3NT in team play. If the claimer had said nothing, there > would not be a ruling that way possible. If claimer says nothing, and there is a choice between a guaranteeing-9-tricks line and a 10-or-8-trick line, don't we *ALL* agree that he gets 9 tricks when the 10-or-8 line is working, and 8 when the 10-or-8 line is failing? I can't imagine a clearer example of "two normal lines," one possibly inferior due to the form of scoring. > Don't you see that you all are being more harsh on claimers > that do state a line than on those that don't ? Not at all. If claimer says he is taking the 9-trick line, he gets his 9 tricks even when the 10-or-8 line fails. If claimer says he is taking the 10-trick line, he is allowed to take 10 tricks when that line works. A claimer who states a (rational) line of play does at least as well as someone who makes no statement. Now, if claimer announces he's going to take a truly awful line -- say he has HAK32 opposite SA H54 CT, the spade is the last trump, and the CT is good, and his statement is "ducking a heart to establish the suit" -- then yes, he's given exactly what he says he wants as long as it's legal. > But when have you last claimed with a complete statement ? > Or if that is your habit (good on you), when have you last > departed from it. Surely you do not utter a statement when > in 7NT you put down 4 aces, kings, queens and a lone jack ? I am (finally) in the habit of claiming by just facing my cards without a statement in exactly two situations: I have high winners that can be cashed in any non-crashing order, or I have a tenace that is being led into to give me the remaining tricks (usually this happens only at trick 12 and only when I have two trump remaining). I don't claim with a complete statement as often as I should, but I am making rapid progress at cultivating the habit. My record thus far is a statement of something like 20 words covering 8 tricks, I believe- I remember feeling a warm glow at having said the whole thing, and my opponents actually listened to a good half of it before tossing their cards in. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 14 18:20:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4E8KIg07139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 18:20:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4E8KCt07135 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 18:20:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.65.234] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14zDa0-0001oF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 May 2001 09:19:49 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c0dc4e$7d6b07a0$ea417ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFCF5A3.78A9BB88@village.uunet.be> <3AFE9C18.B57F2FC2@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 09:18:40 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > No it is not. He was not under any impression that he could > get 10 tricks after a spade return. He had not envisioned a > spade return when claiming, that's for sure, but once he's > on the table, he cannot fail to realize there are no routes > to 10 tricks if he wants to make his contract. Oh, nonsense. The ten of clubs might fall on the second round; now he has a trivial route to ten tricks (club to the nine; red-suit winners pitching spades; spade to dummy). The thing I really object to in claim rulings of this kind is that a player who has made an irrational claim is suddenly supposed to turn into a rational player within the space of a few moments. The man has claimed ten tricks - this is just as "irrational" as some line of play he might adopt to attempt to make ten tricks, ending up with only eight. Yet... > Do you admit that it is irrational to play for 8 tricks here No more or less irrational than it was to claim ten. Both are actions devoid of reason, yet we dismiss the former as a mere aberration - "he spoke too quickly without thinking" - and we do not entertain the possibility of the latter because we consider that a player who spoke too quickly without thinking would not under any circumstances play too quickly without thinking (as if no one has ever done that). > No, I am not. I believe I am ruling according to the laws > and the intention of the lawmakers; I believe you and DB > are expressing great contempt for "bad" claims. Not at all. There are bad claimers, just as there are bad players. What I am expressing great contempt for is the assumption that a man who has just claimed badly will be supposed to play well. > It is you who are treating this man as a felon. He has > committed the terrible crime of speaking before thinking and > he shall be judged to play irrationally afterwards. Again, why should a man who speaks before he thinks not play before he thinks? > Sorry Roger, do you really believe this player would play it > out for 8 tricks, ever ? Who knows? But there is a prima facie case for supposing that a man who claims ten tricks when he doesn't have them might not take nine tricks when he does have them. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 14 19:10:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4E9A0O07300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 19:10:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4E99st07295 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 19:09:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.65.234] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14zEM6-00014g-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 May 2001 10:09:30 +0100 Message-ID: <004201c0dc55$6e694ee0$ea417ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:08:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon wrote: > I don't claim with a complete statement as often as I should, but I am > making rapid progress at cultivating the habit. My record thus far is > a statement of something like 20 words covering 8 tricks, I believe- I > remember feeling a warm glow at having said the whole thing, and my > opponents actually listened to a good half of it before tossing their > cards in. Well done, that man. One down, forty million to go. 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 May 14 22:01:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EC0h407858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:00:43 +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-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 f4EC0Yt07806 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:00:35 +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 f4EC09j29408 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 08:00:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514075102.00b8c3d0@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, 14 May 2001 08:01:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim In-Reply-To: <3AFC0CBD.D3738594@village.uunet.be> References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010511080037.00b81be0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:01 PM 5/11/01, Herman wrote: >Look Eric, >You can argue till you're blue in the face that the laws >should not take the class of player into consideration. >They do. Herman may be right. But so am I. These are not contradictory positions. >As to your question about the player from out of the area, >it is usually not very difficult for a director to judge the >level of player that he is dealing with. > >So what if some decisions are hard ? >Make them, allow them to appeal, whatever. > >But don't take an approach that is against the laws simply >because the decision is hard. I do not argue that it is against the laws. I argue (a) that it should be, and (b) that the law as written is ambiguously worded, and can be read to support either interpretation. It should be against the law not because the decision is hard, but because the decision is inherently subjective and the subjectivity works against us, producing decisions that are often unfair and even more often widely perceived as unfair, to no apparent advantage. 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 May 14 22:08:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EC8Ua10592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:08:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4EC8Nt10554 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:08:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA14769; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:07:47 +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 OAA05612; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:07:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010514141135.00829100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 14:11:35 +0200 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim In-Reply-To: <008101c0da5f$bcf51320$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:17 11/05/01 +0100, David Burn wrote: > >"How can I help? Ah, yes - as usual, you have made a claim statement >that is an obvious joke, and now you wish me to play the hand for you. >Well, I have the highest respect for your rationality, despite the fact >that only a lunatic would claim the rest in this position AG : David has brought to us, at least, the main argument for adjudging 'rationality' issues with severity : since only faulty claims will have to be judged, there is *always* the possibility to argue that somebody who is affected severely enough by nearby passing flying cows (proof : the faulty claim) will still be affectred at the moment of playing out the hand, including heavy errors. In 98% of the cases, I would be glad to answer the offending player on such lines, and it would be quite difficult to counter. 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 May 14 22:18:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ECIiQ14205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:18:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4ECIbt14164 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:18:37 +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 OAA14186; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:14:37 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA13819; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:17:42 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010514142150.0082de60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 14:21:50 +0200 To: "Richard Willey" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Polish Club In-Reply-To: <001c01c0da37$86914e20$7d04e080@isi.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20010511181248.0082b100@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 12:29 11/05/01 -0400, Richard Willey wrote: >> >> AG : very easy. You switch 2D and 2M, that is, 2D is Multi, >> 2H = hearts and >> a minor, 2S = spades and another. > >The General Convention Chart which is used for most events here in >the US does not allow multi-2D. >The 2H and 2S opening that you suggest are both examples of >conventional bids that are not permitted at this level of play. AG : quite surprising. Most European countries would allow both at intermediate level, even in matchpoint events. Even France, which has the reputation of being quite restrictive. Well, maybe this restrictive policy is the main reason why Americans are so surprised at the sight of moderately unexpected systems. In this case, one should ask for a change in American convention charts, not in international ones. 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 May 14 22:28:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ECSe717692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:28:40 +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-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 f4ECSXt17652 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:28:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-179.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.179]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4ECS8c07023 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:28:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFF9039.53F21F4B@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 09:58:49 +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: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010514145002.00ab4618@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 Markus Buchhorn - no, Eric - wrote: > > [majordomo thought this was a bit too long... -Markus] > > > Because not all is black or white; grey exists. Some rulings are > better made judgmentally; some mechanically. I find it entirely > legitimate to debate which is appropriate for various areas of law, > area by area. Faulty claims are an area where the exercise of > judgment, IMO, causes more problems than it solves. > > In general, I prefer to allow TDs/ACs room for judgment in their > rulings. I have never argued against the need for judgment per > se. But I do argue against requiring the particular judgment of a > player's level of bridge skill; this seems to cause more trouble than > all of the other judgments we've mentioned (in UI or MI cases, or in > giving PPs) put together. If you give a player an unfavorable ruling > when another player in a similar situation got a favorable ruling, you > do not offend the former by telling him "we decided that 4H was an LA > in your bidding system but not in his", whereas you often do if what > you have to say is "we decided he was a better player than you are". > But isn't this a non-problem. Do you really think Garozzo and Mrs Guggenheim would arrive in exactly the same position ? But when Garozzo arrives in a certain position, and claims, do you think it is fair to say "we know you would never make this mistake, Mr Garozzo, but Mrs Guggenheim would, so we rule against you". For that matter, do you think the opponents would find it fair if we were to say "we know Mrs Guggenheim might well make this mistake, but since Mr Garozzo would never make it, we shall rule in favour of Mrs Guggenheim." That (or something in between) is what you are proposing. And I know what you want to say. You would prefer it if there were some mechanical way of judging. That's the Burn school. It's fanciful thinking. It's not how the laws work at the moment. Grant, you are guilty of the same old crime that happens again and again on blml. You have your idea about how the laws ought to be, and you apply that to real cases. Then you start re-interpreting the laws to fit your ideas. I know it is hard to get rid of the habit, but please do. As long as the laws are as they are - and I for one see no reason to change them - some aspects of a ruling will have to take the level of the player into account. You may not like it, but that is the way the laws are. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 14 22:51:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ECpJm25593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:51:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4ECpBt25553 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:51:12 +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 f4ECokS48141 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 08:50:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514082408.00b88400@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, 14 May 2001 08:52:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <005901c0daad$cfc27940$734b063e@dodona> References: <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:34 AM 5/12/01, Grattan wrote: > I do not think it right to say that the law >as it stands 'encourages' good players to make >'bad' claims. But the plain fact is that if a >Director is to decide whether a given action >would be irrational (with A playing against B) >if he is considering the case for A he may >decide it would be irrational for such a strong >player to do it, but if he is considering the same >case for B he may say it is not irrational for this >weaker player. But before he makes such a decision he must necessarily have made two prerequisite decisions: (a) that A is "such a strong player", and (b) that B is "this weaker player". These are inherently subjective decisions which can represent no more than the Director's personal opinions. This undermines the inherent legitimacy of the contest; it is the results of the event that should tell us who plays better than whom in the context of the event. The law should not allow the determination which is the object of the contest to be affected by one TD's (or committee's) predisposed view of what the outcome "should" be. > And this is the case wherever the law >applies anywhere in the world in tournaments >that bring together players of notably differing >qualities. Further, in Tournament no.1 for >high quality players actions may be deemed >irrational that would not be considered >irrational for the downtrodden poor consigned >to Tournament no. 2. I would have no quarrel with that, as the downtrodden poor would have been consigned to Tournament #2 on some objective basis. We desire level playing fields, not all playing fields on the same level. If we believe that what is "irrational" is not fixed but depends on the class of player, but also that it is inapprorpriate for rules to be applied based on purely subjective judgments regarding the class of individual players, why not have the definition of "irrational" vary, not with the class of the player involved, but rather with the class of the event being played? When player X asks why he received a less favorable adjustment than player Y in a similar situation, "Because player Y is a flight A caliber player and you are a flight C caliber player," is unacceptable, as it represents nothing more than someone's opinion, whereas, "Because that ruling was in a flight A event and this one is in a flight C event," is a fact and thus an entirely acceptable reply. 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 May 14 22:58:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ECwbe25969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:58:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4ECwUt25965 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 22:58:31 +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 OAA29904; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:57:54 +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 OAA16449; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:57:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010514150144.007de540@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 15:01:44 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <3AFCFE51.1F61A432@village.uunet.be> References: <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> 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 f4ECwXt25966 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:11 12/05/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Ted Ying wrote: >> >> Beware, this response is *LONG*. >> >> I'm really amazed. I had thought that BLML was rather open-minded. >> Now, twice in two days, I de-lurk on this list and am met with >> two very snide, sarcastic and down-right rude responses. Is common >> courtesy so outmoded on the network? Perhaps in Belgium this is >> considered a typical response, but your nasty tone is just unwarranted >> and ill-mannered. >> > >It may please the readers of blml that I have sent apologies >to Ted for those remarks that were more personal than what I >intended. AG : it has been remarked more than once that English, especially British, has a very strange way to deal with obvious statements (eg 'I'm afraid that...' when you know perfectly well it is the case and the one you're speaking with is the culprit). This goes much farther than the elementary need for politeness. In other languages, one is allowed to express oneself directly between equals. Thus, when one translates from one's own language into English, some perfectly innocuous way of speaking or writing suddenly becomes quite rude (or at least is felt so). This has surprised me more than once. It seems Herman was caught with that problem too. If I wish to say 'you're wrong', I'd like to say 'you're wrong'. However, I have to say 'I beg to differ' or 'I'm afraid we don't agree' or something like that. Sometimes, I regret it. And sometimes, I regret I didn't. Strangely, English greeting formulae (especially at the bottom of letters) would seem quite informal in other languages ; I've always been shocked at the amount of paraphrase people writing letters in French are compelled to use. If you find them excessive (as I do), you can understand why some English main-text paraphrases can seem excessive too. Regards, (Veuillez agréer, Mesdames, Messieurs, l'expression de ma considération respectueuse) [see what I mean ?] 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 May 14 23:07:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ED71c26033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 23:07:01 +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 f4ED6ct26001 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 23:06:39 +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 14zI37-000HtH-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:06:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 01:55:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl> <008101c0da5f$bcf51320$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer> <3AFD0366.908E32B2@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3AFD0366.908E32B2@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 >Please blml, realize that although DB continues to argue >that the claim laws should be reworked, there is no real >problem about the application of the claim laws as they >currently are. *ahem* If there is one thing I think BLML has convinced all its readers [except one] it is that the above statement contains a slight distortion of the truth. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 14 23:07:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ED6sh26026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 23:06:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f4ED6et26003 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 23:06:41 +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 14zI3B-000HtG-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:06:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 01:57:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 21 or not? References: <01C0DBFF.764439A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C0DBFF.764439A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Ben asked: >West North East South > 2NT 3D 3NT pass > pass pass > >3D was alerted and south explained on request: both majors. >However the NS pair has not made any agreement on 3D and north has a long >diamond suit. >Law 75 describes the correct procedure but north having the lead summoned in >good faith the TD and informed him about the mistaken explanation. >So south has now UI. >Is the TD in principle still obliged to apply Law 21? Fearghal O'Boyle writes >Yes. >81C6. Exactly. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 14 23:07:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ED6rq26022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 23:06:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f4ED6Yt25996 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 23:06:36 +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 14zI33-000HtK-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:06:07 +0100 Message-ID: <1Zgj2GADey$6EwOc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 01:32:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure References: <200105082044.f48Kio318126@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <200105090327.XAA08114@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <8KeeToBcZ0+6EwHD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <01051313533602.03044@psa836> In-Reply-To: <01051313533602.03044@psa836> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J Grabiner writes >I have had one other ruling which violates both the spirit and the >letter of the alert chart. Responder to 1NT bid 2S, and opener >announced "Transfer". Many players extend the principle of >Announcements slightly beyond the original (such as announcing the range >of NT bids other than openings and direct overcalls), which doesn't >usually cause a problem. However, this pair plays 2S to sign off in >either minor. We were not damaged but asked the director after the >hand, and he said that "Transfer" was correct. This ruling makes the >announcement useless, as I need to ask about the "Transfer" before >bidding. Because of problems with the use of the word "Transfer" we have taken the trouble to define them in our OB. This 'transfer' does not qualify, of course. It is a nonsensical ruling, however it is rather beyond me to know what to suggest. Shoot him, perhaps? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 14 23:07:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ED6ql26021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 23:06:52 +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-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 f4ED6bt25998 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 23:06:37 +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 14zI37-000HtI-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:06:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 01:45:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <3AFBD197.9D4DCBFE@village.uunet.be> <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002201c0db05$d3bef340$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" < > >> OK, so we have two things to discuss here. >> >> One, should all players be treated equally for claims? >> >> Yes, and in my belief they are. They are assumed to play to >their >> level. >"Level" is not measurable. "For the class of player involved" has no >place in an objective set of Laws. This may be true, but seems irrelevant. We have a subjective set of Laws. They include judgement decisions based on a variety of factors. Interestingly enough, so do many other sports' Law books, despite claims to the contrary. I have just seen a ball hit Henchoz's hand in the FA Cup final. Now, if the ball hit his hand that is legal: if he tried to touch the ball with his hand there should have been a penalty [a near-automatic goal] and Henchoz should have been dismissed. Just to spoil the story: it was clear from his reaction that the referee did not see it actually touch the hand. If it had done he would have had to decide Henchoz's intent. Going back to whether "level" is measurable, I think it is, anyway, though I might be persuaded otherwise. Probably not with super- accuracy, but who needs that? >> Two, does this benefit the better players? >> >> Yes, sometimes. It also benefits the poorer players on other >> occasions. Let us look at an example. >> >> If Garozzo holds >> >> xxx opposite AQJ >> >> and finesses, then claims without mentioning the finesse I shall >not >> allow him to take it again. He knows perfectly well it may be >failing >> next time. > >As David knows, if the finesse is failing it must be taken again. As Marv knows, this is wrong. It depends on the circumstances, the rest of the hand and the wording of the claim. >> If a member of John's Japanese Club finesses, then claims, I >shall >> assume she is taking the finesse again. She *knows* it is >working, and >> unless John is at the table she is right. Certainly she will be >> assuming it for a claim. >And what about players whose level is unknown? The old rule was so >much simpler. If the finesse is on, it cannot be taken. If it is >off, it must be taken. No need for mind reading. What old rule? Anyway, simplicity is not necessarily desirable. It would be simpler to reduce the Law book to two Laws ["Don't shoot the Director" and "Don't revoke", maybe] but it would be a poorer Lawbook. >> So in this case the poorer player gets a ruling in her favour >which I >> might rule against Garozzo. >> >"In this case," perhaps. I would prefer that all players be treated >equally, as is appropriate for a classless society. Well, we do not have a classless society, and I am treating all players equally, by assuming that I have some idea of what they are talking about based on their level. The strange idea bandied about here of assuming either that everyone can play like Garozzo, or that everyone does play like Mrs Guggnheim does not treat players equally: it just makes claims fair for the players we are assuming them to be, and unfair for other levels. This is discrimination, and I do not approve of discrimination just to make Director's work easier. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 14 23:58:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EDwLp26240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 23:58:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f4EDwFt26236 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 23:58:16 +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 f4EDvoS53015 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 09:57:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514092506.00b72e40@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, 14 May 2001 09:59:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <3AFF9039.53F21F4B@village.uunet.be> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010514145002.00ab4618@acsys.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:58 AM 5/14/01, Herman wrote: >But when Garozzo arrives in a certain position, and claims, >do you think it is fair to say "we know you would never make >this mistake, Mr Garozzo, but Mrs Guggenheim would, so we >rule against you". I think that it would be incorrect, since the criterion is "not irrational", which has nothing to do with what Mrs. Guggenheim might or might not be likely to do. I do believe that it would be entirely fair and apporpriate to say, "We know you would be extremely unlikely to make such a careless and inferior play, but since it is not an irrational one the law requires us to rule against you." >For that matter, do you think the >opponents would find it fair if we were to say "we know Mrs >Guggenheim might well make this mistake, but since Mr >Garozzo would never make it, we shall rule in favour of Mrs >Guggenheim." We would say, "We know Mrs. Guggenheim might well make this completely irrational play at the table, but, because it is an irrational play, the law does not permit us to assume that she would have done so on this particular hand had she played it out, so we must rule in her favor." >That (or something in between) is what you are proposing. All I am proposing is that we recognize the critical distinction between "this mistake" and "this irrational play", as the law requires. Herman's hypothetical statements made to justify even-handed rulings for both Mr. Garozzo and Mrs. Guggenheim suggest that he either believes them to be synonomous or believes that I (and those who agree with me) do. The latter is not true, so I can only assume the former. >And I know what you want to say. You would prefer it if >there were some mechanical way of judging. That's the Burn >school. It's fanciful thinking. It's not how the laws work >at the moment. I am not of the Burn school, as I have said before. One can (and I do) prefer that there be a mechanical way of judging without prefering David's particular choice of the specific mechanical way of judging he proposes. >Grant, you are guilty of the same old crime that happens >again and again on blml. You have your idea about how the >laws ought to be, and you apply that to real cases. Then >you start re-interpreting the laws to fit your ideas. I >know it is hard to get rid of the habit, but please do. > >As long as the laws are as they are - and I for one see no >reason to change them - some aspects of a ruling will have >to take the level of the player into account. You may not >like it, but that is the way the laws are. As long as the WBFLC interpretation of the law is as it is, I agree that I have no choice but to take the level of the player into account. I do not like it, and see very good reason to change it, for which I have argued in this forum, but I do understand the distinction between believing that the law is an ass and refusing to apply it. But I say this only because the WBFLC has spoken to the matter on the record. If the law as written were not ambiguous on the point, there would be no need or reason for the WBFLC to have issued its interpretation. Herman is entitled to believe that my view of how the law in question should be interpreted is a mistake, but not that it is irrational. There *is* a difference. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 00:02:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EE1vi26261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:01:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4EE1pt26257 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:01:51 +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 QAA14169; Mon, 14 May 2001 16:01:05 +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 QAA08631; Mon, 14 May 2001 16:00:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010514160455.0082c100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:04:55 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim In-Reply-To: References: <3AFD0366.908E32B2@village.uunet.be> <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl> <008101c0da5f$bcf51320$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer> <3AFD0366.908E32B2@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:55 14/05/01 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Herman De Wael writes > >>Please blml, realize that although DB continues to argue >>that the claim laws should be reworked, there is no real >>problem about the application of the claim laws as they >>currently are. > > *ahem* > > If there is one thing I think BLML has convinced all its readers >[except one] it is that the above statement contains a slight distortion >of the truth. AG : make it two. One has no difficulty at all, when reading the footnote to L70, to perceive that it asks us to take into account the level of the player. Anybody saying the contrary is cursed either with very poor eyesight, limited linguistic knowledge or less-than-perfect good faith. Yes, I'm being rude here. And, as an AC member, I would be, too, to the TD, if under the current law, he forgot or declined to apply it. Many of us think this principle is evil. They are by all means allowed to think so. But please don't pretend it doesn't exist. You would go directly against L12B. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 00:15:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EEEo927228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:14:50 +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.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4EEEht27198 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:14:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA00773 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 07:14:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:17:27 -0400 Message-ID: <001a01c0dc80$9a6f8ba0$7d04e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514092506.00b72e40@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have a basic question regarding this thread: It is entirely possible to construct a hand in which a player of Garozzo's skill level would go down, but Mrs. Guggenheim would make. For example, assume that the best technical line of play is a complex squeeze which will succeed 75% of the time. There is also a simple to spot [although] inferior line of play that will succeed 60% of the time. As the cards lie, the 75% line fails while the 60% line succeeds. Is it ever the case where the appeals committee would rule against Garozzo but in favour of Mrs. Guggenheim? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOv/o9bFdMFbo8dHHEQLiIACfabC02Y80ZdQWocXASyLUAyNOTjcAn0Ki 1umRzQ8eU2fBKWn317WhAml6 =qQEN -----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 May 15 00:19:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EEJ4T28685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:19:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4EEIvt28653 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:18:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f4EEIj518333 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 May 2001 10:18:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200105141418.f4EEIj518333@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:18:44 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at May 14, 2001 01:45:46 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > > > This may be true, but seems irrelevant. We have a subjective set of > Laws. They include judgement decisions based on a variety of factors. > > Interestingly enough, so do many other sports' Law books, despite > claims to the contrary. I have just seen a ball hit Henchoz's hand in > the FA Cup final. Now, if the ball hit his hand that is legal: if he > tried to touch the ball with his hand there should have been a penalty > [a near-automatic goal] and Henchoz should have been dismissed. Likewise in ice hockey, if a puck goes into the net off of an offensive player's skate the referee has to decide whether the puck was directed by the skate (no goal) or merely hit the skate (goal). Hockey has several different possible calls for a hick sticking penalty depending upon a referee's judgement. 5 minutes plus ejection if the referee decides there was intent to injure. Or 2 or 4 minutes depending on the referee's judgement (for those wondering, the rules say nothing about blood, though that's usually a decisive factor in the assignment of penalty) And for American football fans consider pass interference. Was the defender just playing the ball? Incidental contact is an obvious judgfement call. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 00:21:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EEL7Z29371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:21:07 +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-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 f4EEL0t29331 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:21:01 +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 f4EEKZu88357 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 10:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514101519.00b68e80@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, 14 May 2001 10:22:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: References: <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3AFBD197.9D4DCBFE@village.uunet.be> <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:45 PM 5/13/01, David wrote: >Marvin L. French writes > > >"Level" is not measurable. "For the class of player involved" has no > >place in an objective set of Laws. > > This may be true, but seems irrelevant. We have a subjective set of >Laws. They include judgement decisions based on a variety of factors. > > Interestingly enough, so do many other sports' Law books, despite >claims to the contrary. I have just seen a ball hit Henchoz's hand in >the FA Cup final. Now, if the ball hit his hand that is legal: if he >tried to touch the ball with his hand there should have been a penalty >[a near-automatic goal] and Henchoz should have been dismissed. > > Just to spoil the story: it was clear from his reaction that the >referee did not see it actually touch the hand. If it had done he would >have had to decide Henchoz's intent. Imagine the referee had seen the touch, and had ruled it unintentional on Henchoz's part. Imagine also that player X, on the opposing team, had been called on an identical play, and the same referee had ruled it an intentional touch and dismissed him. When asked at the press conference after the game, the referree explains, "In my opinion, a player of Mr. Henchoz's class could not have been intending to touch the ball, whereas a player of Mr. X's class, which, in my opinion, is inferior to Mr. Henchoz's, might well have been." Would the sponsoring organization and the fans have accepted this as a fair and impartial pair of rulings? Or would it be the referee who should have been dismissed? 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 May 15 00:43:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EEhZx07079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:43:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4EEhNt07022 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:43:24 +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 14zJYo-000NO2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:42:59 +0000 Message-ID: <4V2gVrAbY+$6EwPY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 15:05:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010514145002.00ab4618@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010514145002.00ab4618@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 Markus Buchhorn writes >[majordomo thought this was a bit too long... -Markus] Who are we to argue? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 00:43:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EEhZa07077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:43:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4EEhNt07021 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:43:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14zJYo-000OQe-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:42:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 15:30:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Exposed cards MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk So a player exposes a few cards during the auction. Easy peasy. L24, partner must pass once, if he becomes a defender they become MPCs [At declarer's option, ok] and L50D1 means they are UI [except for knowledge that they must be played, ok]. BUT! Suppose the auction continues because the opponents bid or double, offender's partner passes once, and now gets another turn to call, the auction is not over, and ..... Are the exposed cards UI to partner? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 00:46:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EEk5H07946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:46:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4EEjvt07904 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 00:45:58 +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 KAA28958 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 10:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105141453.KAA28958@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] New Alert Procedure Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <1Zgj2GADey$6EwOc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <200105082044.f48Kio318126@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <200105090327.XAA08114@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <8KeeToBcZ0+6EwHD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <01051313533602.03044@psa836> <1Zgj2GADey$6EwOc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:53:29 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >David J Grabiner writes > >>I have had one other ruling which violates both the spirit and the >>letter of the alert chart. Responder to 1NT bid 2S, and opener >>announced "Transfer". Many players extend the principle of >>Announcements slightly beyond the original (such as announcing the range >>of NT bids other than openings and direct overcalls), which doesn't >>usually cause a problem. But drives me nuts. Especially 1C "Could be short", and 2S "transfer" (and particularly 2NT "transfer"). But I've also seen 2D "Flannery". And it's often by those pairs that might just forget, if partner doesn't remind them. >>However, this pair plays 2S to sign off in >>either minor. We were not damaged but asked the director after the >>hand, and he said that "Transfer" was correct. This ruling makes the >>announcement useless, as I need to ask about the "Transfer" before >>bidding. > Well, the Director should take a good look at his Alert Chart. Now, I don't know if 2D (hearts, or spades and a minor) "transfer" is correct or not - though the spirit of the Alert Procedure should require an Alert - but this one is strictly incorrect. Even without the potential MI, it's UI and improper Alerting, and should be treated as such (probably "no damage" and "this is what you are required to do, and how you're required to explain".) Looking forward to next weekend, and the chaos that will happen the first time the auction goes p-p-p-1NT (Announced: "good 16-19"), Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 01:10:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EFA8309362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 01:10:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4EF9xt09358 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 01:10:01 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:09:29 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Exposed cards Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 17:09:20 +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 David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] wrote: > So a player exposes a few cards during the auction. Easy peasy. L24, >partner must pass once, if he becomes a defender they become MPCs [At >declarer's option, ok] and L50D1 means they are UI [except for knowledge >that they must be played, ok]. > > BUT! > > Suppose the auction continues because the opponents bid or double, >offender's partner passes once, and now gets another turn to call, the >auction is not over, and ..... > > Are the exposed cards UI to partner? L16: Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. Showing cards to partner is clearly not one of the by this law allowed methods of transferring information to partner. So I would say yes, the exposed cards are UI to partner (and AI to opponents, by the same L16). -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 02:19:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EGIPu12948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 02:18:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4EGIBt12870 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 02:18:19 +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 14zL2R-000LjU-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:17:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:40:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514092506.00b72e40@127.0.0.1> <001a01c0dc80$9a6f8ba0$7d04e080@isi.com> In-Reply-To: <001a01c0dc80$9a6f8ba0$7d04e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Willey writes >Hash: SHA1 > >I have a basic question regarding this thread: > >It is entirely possible to construct a hand in which a player of >Garozzo's skill level would go down, but Mrs. Guggenheim would make. > >For example, assume that the best technical line of play is a complex >squeeze which will succeed 75% of the time. >There is also a simple to spot [although] inferior line of play that >will succeed 60% of the time. > >As the cards lie, the 75% line fails while the 60% line succeeds. > >Is it ever the case where the appeals committee would rule against >Garozzo but in favour of Mrs. Guggenheim? Yes, we have had cases where TDs have done so. It has been a basic assumption on this list that our method of ruling claims is in favour of the better players: this basic assumption is wrong. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 02:19:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EGIHD12897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 02:18:17 +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-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 f4EGI4t12830 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 02:18:07 +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 14zL2R-000LjT-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:17:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:38:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3AFBD197.9D4DCBFE@village.uunet.be> <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010514101519.00b68e80@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514101519.00b68e80@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 08:45 PM 5/13/01, David wrote: > >>Marvin L. French writes >> >> >"Level" is not measurable. "For the class of player involved" has no >> >place in an objective set of Laws. >> >> This may be true, but seems irrelevant. We have a subjective set of >>Laws. They include judgement decisions based on a variety of factors. >> >> Interestingly enough, so do many other sports' Law books, despite >>claims to the contrary. I have just seen a ball hit Henchoz's hand in >>the FA Cup final. Now, if the ball hit his hand that is legal: if he >>tried to touch the ball with his hand there should have been a penalty >>[a near-automatic goal] and Henchoz should have been dismissed. >> >> Just to spoil the story: it was clear from his reaction that the >>referee did not see it actually touch the hand. If it had done he would >>have had to decide Henchoz's intent. > >Imagine the referee had seen the touch, and had ruled it unintentional >on Henchoz's part. Imagine also that player X, on the opposing team, >had been called on an identical play, and the same referee had ruled it >an intentional touch and dismissed him. When asked at the press >conference after the game, the referree explains, "In my opinion, a >player of Mr. Henchoz's class could not have been intending to touch >the ball, whereas a player of Mr. X's class, which, in my opinion, is >inferior to Mr. Henchoz's, might well have been." Would the sponsoring >organization and the fans have accepted this as a fair and impartial >pair of rulings? Or would it be the referee who should have been >dismissed? It is difficult to believe that this is analogous. In football, I doubt that it would be accepted because it is so patently not the case. In bridge claims, of course, we try to decide what would have happened absent the claim. It seems difficult to do that without taking the player' ability into account. The analogy that I do see is that the referee makes judgements. The analogous situation would have been if he has seen it, decided it was not deliberate, and then there had been a later case where an opponnet did something similar, and he decided that was deliberate. The difference in football is that the referee makes judgements based on different factors from bridge claims: the similarity is that he decides what he believes is going on. [In the actual game, the only other player who touched a ball with his hand or had the ball touch his hand was ... Henchoz again, later on!] -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 02:18:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EGIJ512907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 02:18:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4EGI2t12812 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 02:18:06 +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 14zL2N-000LjR-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:17:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:32:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim References: <3AFD0366.908E32B2@village.uunet.be> <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl> <008101c0da5f$bcf51320$a90f7ad5@pbncomputer> <3AFD0366.908E32B2@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010514160455.0082c100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010514160455.0082c100@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 01:55 14/05/01 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Herman De Wael writes >> >>>Please blml, realize that although DB continues to argue >>>that the claim laws should be reworked, there is no real >>>problem about the application of the claim laws as they >>>currently are. >> >> *ahem* >> >> If there is one thing I think BLML has convinced all its readers >>[except one] it is that the above statement contains a slight distortion >>of the truth. > >AG : make it two. One has no difficulty at all, when reading the footnote >to L70, to perceive that it asks us to take into account the level of the >player. Anybody saying the contrary is cursed either with very poor >eyesight, limited linguistic knowledge or less-than-perfect good faith. >Yes, I'm being rude here. And, as an AC member, I would be, too, to the TD, >if under the current law, he forgot or declined to apply it. >Many of us think this principle is evil. They are by all means allowed to >think so. But please don't pretend it doesn't exist. You would go directly >against L12B. It appears I have not made myself clear here. Herman says "there is no real problem about the application of the claim laws as they currently are". Do you really believe this, Alain? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 03:18:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EHHsT03656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 03:17:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4EHHlt03622 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 03:17:48 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 64C942A52A2; Mon, 14 May 2001 19:17:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 0D4BA2A4D16 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 19:17:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 13630 invoked from network); 14 May 2001 16:19:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 14 May 2001 16:19:25 -0000 Message-ID: <3B000553.7070801@interia.pl> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 18:18:27 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Uncertain explanation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: b72beacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > In at least seven > of the half a dozen replies My English is very far from being flawless so please correct me if I'm wrong: dozen means twelve, doesn't it? So "seven of the half a dozen" sounds to me like "in at least 130% of replies". If this looks like some smartass comment to you that's because it is. :-) I just couldn't resist; sorry, David. Unless the whole expression is an English idiom which I don't know which is fairly possible. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A------------------ Masz problem z prowadzeniem ksiag? Szukasz odpowiedzi? Forum Ksiegowych i Bieglych Rewidentow w INTERIA.PL! Skorzystaj - http://biznes.interia.pl/biznesforum/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 05:51:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EJoqN05109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 05:50:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4EJojt05105 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 05:50:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-8.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.8]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D1F722E13B for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 20:50:16 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:46:59 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <3AFE9FF2.ACB4E2F1@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Herman De Wael (Sun 13 May 2001 15:54) writes: > >Definition of "claim breaking down" : >Point at which, to the player who has claimed, it becomes >clear that the line that he has stated will not achieve the >desired result. >No need to prove this, the words "claim breaking down" are >mine, and I can tell you what they mean if I wish. Indeed, but not if you wish others to follow your arguments. I would have thought to most people the claim has "broken down" when it is no longer possible to play the hand in the manner specified by the claimer. The fundamental difference between our approaches appears to be that I believe a player who claims is committed to the line he has specified in the same way that he is committed in the auction to a call once 'made' or in the play to a card once played. In all of these cases it is not relevant whether or not the call, play or claim is *rational*, it is a committed action. A player should not be claiming "if there is any doubt as to the outcome of the hand" and he is not permitted a second shot (L70D). I should add that, outside of BLML, I have yet to come across a TD who has suggested otherwise. You OTOH seem to regard the stated line as a sort of 'statement of intent' which as TD you feel free to amend if you are convinced that, during the course of playing it, he would have come up with a better line. >Don't you see that you all are being more harsh on claimers >that do state a line than on those that don't ? Not at all. "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification..."(L68C). A claimer does not, therefore, have the right to remain silent and in my experience he usually says *something* unless he has all top cards when "the rest are all good" may be taken as said. If he does remain silent or gives a sketchy statement of clarification this should never be to his advantage. The TD will have to guess his intentions and rule any doubtful points in favour of the non-claimers. 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 May 15 06:32:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4EKVLW05197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 06:31:21 +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 f4EKVFt05193 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 06:31:16 +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 NAA07634; Mon, 14 May 2001 13:30:48 -0700 Message-Id: <200105142030.NAA07634@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 May 2001 20:46:59 BST." Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:30:48 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chas Fellows wrote: > >Herman De Wael (Sun 13 May 2001 15:54) writes: > > > >Definition of "claim breaking down" : > >Point at which, to the player who has claimed, it becomes > >clear that the line that he has stated will not achieve the > >desired result. > >No need to prove this, the words "claim breaking down" are > >mine, and I can tell you what they mean if I wish. > > Indeed, but not if you wish others to follow your arguments. I would have > thought to most people the claim has "broken down" when it is no longer > possible to play the hand in the manner specified by the claimer. I haven't been following the arguments lately, but I wanted to comment on the "broken down" term: AKQ AKQJT -- -- 9 85 -- 876432 Playing in a spade contract, South claims, saying, "I'll cash the hearts and pitch clubs on them." However, he's forgotten that a trump is still out; specifically, East has the 8 of spades. East also has four hearts. If South started cashing hearts, East would play his trump on the fifth heart. If we adopt Herman's definition, it would become obvious at that point that his line is not going to work, and the claim has broken down at that point. If we adopt your definition, however (and if I'm understanding it correctly), the claim has not broken down because South is still able to pitch a club on this heart. I believe "most people" would follow Herman's definition, and they would let South have all the tricks because it's obvious he would overruff the heart. Perhaps you would too---I'm not sure. I just wanted to point out that whatever definition we adopt for this term should accomplish what we want it to accomplish in this sort of layout. -- 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 May 15 07:18:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ELHmx05309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 07:17:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4ELHft05305 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 07:17:42 +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 f4ELHFx70209 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:17:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514164554.00b77ae0@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, 14 May 2001 17:19:21 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514101519.00b68e80@127.0.0.1> <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3AFBD197.9D4DCBFE@village.uunet.be> <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010514101519.00b68e80@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 11:38 AM 5/14/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >Imagine the referee had seen the touch, and had ruled it unintentional > >on Henchoz's part. Imagine also that player X, on the opposing team, > >had been called on an identical play, and the same referee had ruled it > >an intentional touch and dismissed him. When asked at the press > >conference after the game, the referree explains, "In my opinion, a > >player of Mr. Henchoz's class could not have been intending to touch > >the ball, whereas a player of Mr. X's class, which, in my opinion, is > >inferior to Mr. Henchoz's, might well have been." Would the sponsoring > >organization and the fans have accepted this as a fair and impartial > >pair of rulings? Or would it be the referee who should have been > >dismissed? > > It is difficult to believe that this is analogous. In football, I >doubt that it would be accepted because it is so patently not the case. Why is it not the case? I made up Mr. X, so I'm free to make him not as good a player as Henchoz. What's more, I'm free to hypothesize that the officials, the fans, and everyone else knows that he's not as good a player as Henchoz. And I believe that the referee's calls still would not be accepted. > In bridge claims, of course, we try to decide what would have happened >absent the claim. It seems difficult to do that without taking the >player' ability into account. But the law does not tell us to try to decide what would have happened. It tells us to decide what are all of the "not irrational" lines consistent with the claim statement, and then to decide which of those lines leads to the least favorable outcome for the declarer. The former is difficult but unnecessary. The latter would not be difficult at all if we were to have guidelines for determining "irrational", and it is far easier to construct reasonably objective guidelines for judging the rationality of a given play than for judging the "class" of a given player. > The analogy that I do see is that the referee makes judgements. The >analogous situation would have been if he has seen it, decided it was >not deliberate, and then there had been a later case where an opponnet >did something similar, and he decided that was deliberate. The >difference in football is that the referee makes judgements based on >different factors from bridge claims: the similarity is that he decides >what he believes is going on. I don't want to sound thin-skinned, but I keep arguing that rulings should not depend on subjective judgments of individual players' levels of ability, and I keep getting counter-arguments which claim that I have argued that rulings should not depend on subjective judgments, period, with examples which disprove the arguers' straw men without addressing what I have said. Of course referees in all sports are required to make subjective judgments, and of course bridge is no exception. I have put forth the proposition that in no sport other than bridge, however, does the law require any of those subjective judgments which must be made to be made on the basis of a determination as to the level of skill of the player(s) involved, and have yet to see a counter-example that suggests that this is not the case. I too can come up with numerous examples from other sports where two different players might receive different penalties for similar offenses based on the referee's subjective judgment, but I have yet to see a non-bridge example proposed in which that subjective judgment could validly be justified purely on the grounds that the player who received the harsher penalty is not as good a player as the one who received the lesser penalty. I continue to believe that a law which required referees to make such judgments would not be tolerated in any other sport, and await a rebuttal that addresses my actual position rather than a vastly more general and sweeping one which I do not hold and, indeed, agree is obviously absurd. 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 May 15 07:23:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ELN7X05331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 07:23:07 +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 (oe44.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4ELN1t05327 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 07:23:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 14 May 2001 14:22:33 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.18.45] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFCF5A3.78A9BB88@village.uunet.be> <3AFE9C18.B57F2FC2@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:18:50 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2001 21:22:33.0234 (UTC) FILETIME=[FD422720:01C0DCBB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A Belgian Claim | Sorry Roger, but you start from a totally wrong premise. | | You seem to believe that a player, when claiming, sets out a | line of play that he must then follow to the letter. | That is simply not the case. | | Consider the following alternative case. Suppose my | declarer, without adding anything further, without even | showing his cards, says "play is over". That is a claim, | true ? It must be judged upon, true ? | Do you really intend that player to receive 9 tricks, and my | fellow who innocently adds that he will score 10 tricks, | only 8 ? Herman, I am convinced that the world believes that it is good law that a claim is discarded when it breaks down. I am convinced that it is bad law. While I have inferred the principle, a better statement of it is that if the claim is interrupted then it is resumed at the earliest point possible. Surely any clarification summarizes what claimer earned so why discard it if there is a fault? It still is evidence of not only what was included but also excluded. You have proposed an alternate case where the claim is as if there were no clarification- not even mention of the number of tricks [except for an inference of all]. This is how I suggest it ought to be resolved [of course, it would be shorter if the cards were known]. Without clarification, the line of play is unknown and the number of tricks is unknown. Therefore, the adjudicated line must comply. It is noted that from the lie of the cards it would be irrational to not take at least 8 tricks. So even though it would be legal to duck two spades and the CT for seven tricks it would be irrational to do so. So, are there any normal lines that the defenders suggest will minimize declarer's tricks? c. they could suggest that it is normal that a losing black finesse be taken. In that case it would be irrational to not score 9 tricks. d. They could suggest that it is normal to drop a black card [as previously discussed]. So, depending on the actual lie the outcome would be 8, [or 9], or 10 tricks I do not see any way claimer can convince me that the above are not normal or are excluded by his claim. Also, I am unconvinced that an assertion that it is irrational to not guarantee the contract is valid. If declarer claimed he was guaranteeing his contract, then clearly [b] is excluded, but he did not. As such, both are reviewed considering the lie of the cards and the defenders get the most favorable outcome.. I fail to see anything incongruous about application of the procedure in either case. | Do you see what I mean ? | | By saying that there are 10 tricks, my player has done | nothing that would suggest that he must now certainly lpay | for 10 tricks. After all, 9 tricks are all that he needs | for his contract. Any "normal" line must be judged with | that in mind. | | That was a very fundamental point, now to your mail. | | BTW, I really hate it when you send me such things in | private. I do believe the list could benefit from this | discussion. But having been warned about netiquette by | David once, I shall not tempt him again. I apologize for offending. It shall never happen again. | So please Roger, send this reply to the list. | | Roger Pewick wrote: | > | > | > To take 10 tricks it is clear that declarer's hand must be entered. | > This is the inference contained in the claim for it to be valid. For | > defenders who see the hands it is irrational to lead a red card, no? | > They would choose a black card, yes? | > | | of course they do - points about 10 tricks dealt with above. | | > | I don't believe that this is the case. Declarer has claimed | > | without realising that if north returns a black, he has no | > | entry in hand for his top tricks. | > | > I made that point. | > | > | > There are two possible routes to declarer's hand that he can | > force. | > | > [1] the CT falls singleton and [2] the SQ falls singleton or | > | > doubleton, | > | | > | no, there are three of them: | > | [3] play small spade off the table twice (even after cashing | > | the ace) | > | > To do so would produce 9 tricks, not 10. True? | > | | and is that not all that he needs ? It is team play, | remember. In pairs play, a line for 8/10 is "normal", so 8 | tricks would be the ruling in pairs play. | | > | This third line is 100% for 9 tricks. | > | > The claim was for 10 tricks, no? Are there not positions possible for | > the cards where 10 tricks can be forced. Is it not normal for he who | > plans to take 10 tricks when it is possible to take 10 tricks by force | > to act on the presumption that the cards lie favorable to win by | > force? | > | | No it is not. He was not under any impression that he could | get 10 tricks after a spade return. He had not envisioned a | spade return when claiming, that's for sure, but once he's | on the table, he cannot fail to realize there are no routes | to 10 tricks if he wants to make his contract. | | > Certainly it is normal for a player who sees that playing for 10 | > tricks when doing so could result in 8 would select to guarantee 9. | | I did not believe you were of any other opinion. This is a | principle we're discussing, not a bridge hand, i'm sure. | | > But in my mind the way the game ought to be played such a selection | > can only be allowed when the contestant elects to play it out. But | > here we have a claim and there is no more option to change the path | > taken. | > | | Yes, the laws explicitely allow this. No other line .. | unless to do so would be irrational. | Do you admit that it is irrational to play for 8 tricks here | ? | | > In my mind the claim forbids undertaking any line that guarantees from | > the outset that the claimed tricks can not be achieved against any | > possible layout, while there is a possible lie of the cards where a | > line could be successful. | > | | You are mistaken. | | > Knowledgeable people assert that the law says the above is not so. So | > I note here that it is my view that it would be better if it were so. | > | | Why ? | | > Herman, in discussing claims you are noted for expressing great | > 'compassion' for claimer. | | No, I am not. I believe I am ruling according to the laws | and the intention of the lawmakers; I believe you and DB | are expressing great contempt for "bad" claims. | > But is it compassion you deliver? Or is it | > treating contestants as children instead of players? If the cards | > were played out, is there any compassion when the tricks are counted? | | If the cards were played out, are you in any doubt that this | player would make 9 tricks ? Really, are you ? | That's the whole point. This player did nothing more wrong | than claiming too soon. Speaking before he had thought. He | must pay, by the laws, the provided penalty : play ceases | and he receives the least of all normal results. | It is you who are treating this man as a felon. He has | committed the terrible crime of speaking before thinking and | he shall be judged to play irrationally afterwards. | What is that terrible crime that you and DB are talking of ? | > Surely not. The tricks were played and the outcome is certain. | > Should it be any different after a claim? You say yes, but how can | > it be valid? The laws provide a playing field that allow the cards to | > control the destiny. It is the players' skill that defines what | > happens during a trick and it is the rank of the cards that decide who | > won the trick, nothing more. | > | | Sorry Roger, do you really believe this player would play it | out for 8 tricks, ever ? | > Just what right does the director have to rule that deuces take aces, | > merely because a player has claimed? This is what happens when a | > claim is discarded so it is not followed to conclusion. You have been | > asserting this for years and have asserted it here- and many believe | > you. | > | > About claims I will tell you a part of my thinking- | > | > Is there any valid reason for entitling a player who has claimed a | > second turn to get it right . I cannot think of one. | | The LAWS !!!!!!!!!! To quote David Burn, 'The law is an ass.' David, the royalty check is in the mail. | > But I can think | > of reasons to entitle a player who has botched a claim the opportunity | > to convince the director/ opponents what his claim requires, and | > forbids, what is not normal, and what is irrational to not do. if you | > are looking for a standard for ruling on busted claims that will yield | > consistent results you are getting close to it right here. Well, the | > world is convinced that such an approach is horrid, but I suspect that | > David Burn might break a smile for a second or two. | > | | But we are not ruling claims as per DB's wishes. | We are ruling them as per the laws. | > And for this claim- | > | > I have asserted that for a player who claims 9 tricks it would be | > irrational to not take 9 tricks by ducking to his hand any return. | > And further when W holds both black cards it would be irrational to | > not take 10 tricks. | > | > This is entirely different when the claim is for 10 tricks. | > | But who ever said that the claim was for 10 tricks. You said that claimer said it. | At this | moment, I cannot remember the exact wording of the claim, | and it would lose in translation anyway. | And does it really matter ? If he had simply said "contract | fulfilled", and the claim were correct, would you not give | him 10 tricks in stead of the 9 he apparently asked. | All that matters is that play ceases and that the TD shall | determine the result. | | > I surmised that your view of the correct ruling was that it would be | > irrational for a declarer that can not guarantee an entry to not make | > two different claims, the second one for 9 tricks. | > | > | I believe you are under the mistaken belief that if someone | > | claims for 10 tricks, he must now play for 10 tricks. That | > | is clearly not the case. Declarer has claimed 10 top | > | tricks, | > | > btw, are you sure he claimed top tricks? Or was it 10 tricks? | > | | What does it matter ? | The claim was made, the play ceases, the claim is apparently | invalid and the TD decidees how many tricks declarer shall | make. If you think it is rational for this man to only play | lines that can yield 10 tricks, then you are beyond me. | | Really Roger, what is so difficult about this principle ? | There should really be only one question. Is it normal or | irrational, for this player, in this situation, to realize | that in order to make his contract, he should not lead the | King of spades to the next trick. The cards may be laid out so that 10 tricks might be had by playing the king or not playing the king. Therefore it is normal to do either. | > | and that claim is clearly false. If we allow | > | declarer to notice this | > | > I thought it was the opponents who are allowed to notice, and use it | > to object! But to the point, it is not clearly false- merely | > doubtful. If both black cards are onside and both drop, then the 10 | > tricks are earned provided that the line of play claimed [play for 10 | > tricks that does not depend on an unproven finesse or drop] is | > adjudicated. | > | | Now you are entering "strange claim" territory. In that | case, the only line that corresponded to the claim statement | was clearly irrational and yet it lead to the contract being | made. Remember that in that case, I was the harsh one and | y'all the "compassionate" ones. Iirc, there were 2 lines consistent with the claim. [a] overtake the club and [b] play for the distribution where the heart ace must win and exit a club. If no one notices line [b] then it would be irrational to not take line [a]. Any notion of entering dummy via a heat finesse must be excluded because it would necessitate pitching one of the four clubs claimed, leaving only 3 club tricks possible. | > | (and I am granting you that this is | > | under discussion), we must allow him all normal lines. In | > | team play, normal lines are those that lead to 9 tricks in | > | 3NT, | > | > This is a silly notion wrt claims that is taken seriously. The words | > are slippery I tell you. To contract by claim for ten tricks it is | > normal to play for ten, not nine. | | How can you ever state something like that ! | | > I tell you this as well. It is the | > procedure in L70 that makes guaranteeing nine tricks attractive when | > there is the possibility of eight. So when one the first time | > claimer 'ignores it' it surely is justice to rule on the claim. | What does that mean ? Declarer is on lead with four hearts and a diamond and dummy has five solid diamonds. Declarer claims and defender objects saying he gets his heart ace. Ruling the claim declarer gets 5 tricks. If the claim was I get four diamonds and a heart and the defender objects with his heart ace the ruling is that he gets his ace. | > | not those that lead to 8-10 tricks. We might argue if | > | this declarer will notice this 100% line, and if he would do | > | so in time to recover (I believe both are true), but we | > | cannot impose on him a line that may yield 8 tricks if there | > | is a line that yields 9 at 100%. | > | > | > therefore, for the black suit return it is normal to win | > | > high in dummy. Test clubs first so as to retain an entry if the T | > | > drops. If neither black card drops then it is irrational to not | > cash | > | > the clubs, and would be normal to keep the red suit stoppers. | > | > | No, because he still has 2 spade losers on the table. The | > | only reason to cash the club king is to create an entry to | > | the nine. After cashing the club king, declarer shall play | > | small spade yet again. | > | > But the SQ could be stiff or doubleton, or the CT could be stiff. | > That is why it is normal. If it was proven impossible for either of | > those, then yes it would be irrational to not finesse. | > | | Irrelevant since the premise is wrong. Declarer is not | playing for 10 tricks, only for 9. | | > | > However, when T12 is lost to the SQ declarer will not know which | > red | > | > stopper to retain or will have a second spade loser so the defense | > | > will have the last two tricks. However, it is also normal to | > finesse | > | > so if either black card is with East and would drop the losing | > finesse | > | > is adjudicated and thereafter it would be irrational to not score | > 9 | > | > tricks. Declarer makes 10 tricks only when W has both black cards | > and | > | > one of them drops. | > | > | > | > All presuming that declarer asserts that it would be irrational to | > no | > | > play that way. | > | > | > | > But doubtless, because there is no such entry guaranteed then | > surely | > | > the inferred claim of a direct entry must be discarded. And | > therefore | > | > it would be irrational to not adopt a line guaranteeing 9 instead | > of | > | > 10 tricks? | > | > | > | | > | indeed. | > | | > | > Comment- declarer did not resolve the doubtful points of T5 by | > play. | > | | > | so we rule doubtful points against him. Are you in doubt | > | that he would notice the line of playing J10 of spades as a | > | sure entry ? Are you in doubt that he would choose a safe 9 | > | trick line over any that yields 8-10 ? | > | > Well, I doubt that he has forgotten his claim is for 10 tricks. | > | | But he has no reason whatsoever to play for 10 tricks. Obviously, it does not count that he claimed 10 tricks. This is what I meant about you having a compassionate view. I made no comment about where it fits into the law except that you feel that it is in accordance with law. regards roger pewick | > | I am not. | > | | > | > It is irrelevant that he could still guarantee his contract by | > playing | > | > for 9 tricks instead of claiming ten. If the claim was for 9 | > tricks, | > | > it would be irrational to not finesse the best black suit return- | > and | > | > if the finesse won then 10 tricks. | > | > | > | > cheers | > | > roger pewick | > | | > | -- | > | Herman DE WAEL | > | > roger | | Sorry Roger, but your premise is so false that I am at a | loss for words! | | | -- | Herman DE WAEL -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 07:50:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ELoCZ05387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 07:50:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4ELo5t05383 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 07:50:06 +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 f4ELnex72756 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 17:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514172047.00abea20@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, 14 May 2001 17:51:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: References: <001a01c0dc80$9a6f8ba0$7d04e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010514092506.00b72e40@127.0.0.1> <001a01c0dc80$9a6f8ba0$7d04e080@isi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:40 AM 5/14/01, David wrote: > Yes, we have had cases where TDs have done so. It has been a basic >assumption on this list that our method of ruling claims is in favour of >the better players: this basic assumption is wrong. It may well be wrong to assume that our method of ruling claims favors the better players, but I have not said that it does, nor do I believe that most others who support my position have done so. It is not wrong, however, to assume that our method of ruling claims is perceived (albeit perhaps incorrectly) by a significant number (probably a majority, but I can't prove that) of our players to favor the better players, at least in the context of bridge in the ACBL, nor to argue that this is a problem which ought to be solved, nor to argue that the appropriate solution is to fix the law so that it can be applied by a TD or AC who knows what happened at the table but does not know the identity of the players involved. Human nature being what it is, if we have five situations where we make different rulings in different situations, and the five players receiving the less favorable rulings ask for our justifications, and we tell four of them that they got the harsher ruling because they are better players than their counterparts and tell the fifth that he got the harsher ruling because he is a worse player than his counterpart, which justification will be repeated by the aggrieved player to everyone in the club as evidence of favoritism? Conscious bias is a very minor problem, and would not be worth fixing. Subconscious bias is a more significant problem, but may well still be a minor one. Perception of bias -- the common sense understanding of human nature that says that if the laws are written to allow favoritism by the adjudicators there will be favoritism by the adjudicators, because not even our wonderful TDs (and AC members) are necessarily paragons of virtue -- is a major problem, and our players deserve to have it fixed. 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 May 15 11:55:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4F1spX25403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:54:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4F1sit25398 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:54:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-45.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.45]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 227C822E0DE for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 02:54:16 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:51:00 +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: <200105142030.NAA07634@mailhub.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Adam Beneschan (Mon 14 May 2001 21:31) writes: >>Chas Fellows wrote: >> >Herman De Wael (Sun 13 May 2001 15:54) writes: >> >Definition of "claim breaking down" : >> >Point at which, to the player who has claimed, it becomes >> >clear that the line that he has stated will not achieve the >> >desired result. >> >No need to prove this, the words "claim breaking down" are >> >mine, and I can tell you what they mean if I wish. >> >> Indeed, but not if you wish others to follow your arguments. I >would have >> thought to most people the claim has "broken down" when it is no longer >> possible to play the hand in the manner specified by the claimer. > >I haven't been following the arguments lately, but I wanted to comment >on the "broken down" term: > > AKQ > AKQJT > -- > -- > > > 9 > 85 > -- > 876432 > > >Playing in a spade contract, South claims, saying, "I'll cash the >hearts and pitch clubs on them." However, he's forgotten that a trump >is still out; specifically, East has the 8 of spades. East also has >four hearts. > >If South started cashing hearts, East would play his trump on the >fifth heart. If we adopt Herman's definition, it would become obvious >at that point that his line is not going to work, and the claim has >broken down at that point. If we adopt your definition, however (and >if I'm understanding it correctly), the claim has not broken down >because South is still able to pitch a club on this heart. After sorting out why we have an extra card in the South hand, we are into L70C. The claimer hasn't mentioned the outstanding trump (L70C1) and was probably unaware of it (L70C2). A case could now be made for allowing the defence a trump trick on the basis that the claimer might not react quickly enough to the unexpected ruff (L70C3). Is this a 'doubtful point' to be resolved in non-claimer's favour? The following is a similar situation - trick 12, all spades, any contract, lead in North hand: x x x x K x A Q With the finesse known to be right, South could successfully claim saying "finessing". I have however more than once seen an unfortunate South lose a trick here by playing the Q at trick 12 a nano second before realising that East had put the K in. Whatever the TD decides, however, the point here is that I am happy to accept that declarer's claim has "broken down" when his fifth heart which he has claimed as a winner is ruffed. If you rule that he would have spotted this, it would be irrational for him not to correct his stated line and overruff. This is IMO quite different from the case under discussion where declarer has made an appalling claim and Herman believes he should be allowed to correct it simply on the basis that at some stage while playing it he would be bound to realise the error of his ways. 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 May 15 12:42:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4F2gLr25470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 12:42:21 +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 f4F2gEt25466 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 12:42:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (eiuts45.eiu.edu [139.67.16.45]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA11965 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 21:41:53 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010514210516.007be970@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 21:05:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514164554.00b77ae0@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514101519.00b68e80@127.0.0.1> <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3AFBD197.9D4DCBFE@village.uunet.be> <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010514101519.00b68e80@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 05:19 PM 5/14/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 11:38 AM 5/14/01, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau writes >> In bridge claims, of course, we try to decide what would have happened >>absent the claim. It seems difficult to do that without taking the >>player' ability into account. > >But the law does not tell us to try to decide what would have >happened. It tells us to decide what are all of the "not irrational" >lines consistent with the claim statement, and then to decide which of >those lines leads to the least favorable outcome for the declarer. The >former is difficult but unnecessary. The latter would not be difficult >at all if we were to have guidelines for determining "irrational", and >it is far easier to construct reasonably objective guidelines for >judging the rationality of a given play than for judging the "class" of >a given player. I agree completely. If devising objective unbendable standards is our goal, it will obviously be easier to do so without making reference to the class of player involved. Of course, I don't share that objective. >> The analogy that I do see is that the referee makes judgements. The >>analogous situation would have been if he has seen it, decided it was >>not deliberate, and then there had been a later case where an opponnet >>did something similar, and he decided that was deliberate. The >>difference in football is that the referee makes judgements based on >>different factors from bridge claims: the similarity is that he decides >>what he believes is going on. > >I don't want to sound thin-skinned, but I keep arguing that rulings >should not depend on subjective judgments of individual players' levels >of ability, and I keep getting counter-arguments which claim that I >have argued that rulings should not depend on subjective judgments, >period, with examples which disprove the arguers' straw men without >addressing what I have said. Of course referees in all sports are >required to make subjective judgments, and of course bridge is no >exception. I have put forth the proposition that in no sport other >than bridge, however, does the law require any of those subjective >judgments which must be made to be made on the basis of a determination >as to the level of skill of the player(s) involved, and have yet to see >a counter-example that suggests that this is not the case. I too can There probably isn't one. Because I can't think of another sport that allow play to be curtailed while still scoring 'as if' play had not been curtailed. Maybe there is one--I can't think of any. If there was such a thing, I do not doubt that such rulings as these would be considered more reasonable. Imagine that a basketball team were allowed to forego their last 10 possessions of the ball and take a 'normal' score instead. If, somehow, this were disputed, I am sure it would not be considered unreasonable to have standards for what is 'normal' for _that_ team. But even if you could find me examples in other sports where play can be surtailed while still scoring it as if it were to have continued, I don't care. I don't see how the way (other) sports are ruled has anything to do with how bridge is ruled. >come up with numerous examples from other sports where two different >players might receive different penalties for similar offenses based on >the referee's subjective judgment, but I have yet to see a non-bridge >example proposed in which that subjective judgment could validly be >justified purely on the grounds that the player who received the >harsher penalty is not as good a player as the one who received the >lesser penalty. I continue to believe that a law which required >referees to make such judgments would not be tolerated in any other >sport, and await a rebuttal that addresses my actual position rather >than a vastly more general and sweeping one which I do not hold and, >indeed, agree is obviously absurd. I doubt if they would be tolerated. But I have already pointed out some absolutely crucial differences between bridge and (other) sports. I think those differences adequately explain why a principle appropriate to bridge is inappropriate there. Change the rules of any sport such that the penalty for an infraction is 'the worst result the offenders might reasonably have gotten without the infraction", and I guarantee you will have people arguing "But that player is so good that absent the infraction he would have scored, though I agree some normal stiff wouldn't have." >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 17:03:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4F71tN14218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 17:01:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4F71nt14213 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 17:01:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4F71Ie13477 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 May 2001 08:01:18 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:01 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] 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: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514101519.00b68e80@127.0.0.1> Eric wrote: > > Imagine the referee had seen the touch, and had ruled it unintentional > on Henchoz's part. Imagine also that player X, on the opposing team, > had been called on an identical play, and the same referee had ruled it > an intentional touch and dismissed him. When asked at the press > conference after the game, the referree explains, "In my opinion, a > player of Mr. Henchoz's class could not have been intending to touch > the ball, whereas a player of Mr. X's class, which, in my opinion, is > inferior to Mr. Henchoz's, might well have been." Would the sponsoring > organization and the fans have accepted this as a fair and impartial > pair of rulings? Or would it be the referee who should have been > dismissed? Football is a poor analogy for bridge. However suppose the referee had penalised Henchoz and let off the player at the other end he might say afterwards "Henchoz is young, fit and agile and I believe he could have easily avoided the ball had he so intended. But let's face it Adams is an elderly, drug-ravaged, alcoholic - there's no way he could have avoided that ball if he'd tried." I don't think neutral observers would/should criticise such a judgement - apart from advising a little more tact (fans will never like an adverse ruling from the ref). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 19:30:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4F9Tcd13590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 19:29:39 +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 f4F9TSt13540 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 19:29:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-134.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.134]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4F9T1c02544 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:29:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFFD279.6C8FC36A@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 14:41:29 +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 out of turn 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 Sun, 13 May 2001, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > I want you all to try the following thought experiment with > > any of the claims that you are uncertain of. Consider them > > again, but with claimer remaining absolutely silent. Now I > > know DB will then have him play all cards in the most > > inopportune manner, but that is not how claims are handled. > > > > In a private message, Roger has told me that the Belgian > > declarer is only allowed to play lines that have a > > possibility of 10 tricks in them, despite the fact that he's > > in 3NT in team play. If the claimer had said nothing, there > > would not be a ruling that way possible. > > If claimer says nothing, and there is a choice between a > guaranteeing-9-tricks line and a 10-or-8-trick line, don't we *ALL* agree > that he gets 9 tricks when the 10-or-8 line is working, and 8 when the > 10-or-8 line is failing? I can't imagine a clearer example of "two normal > lines," one possibly inferior due to the form of scoring. > This is an interesting point, and merits further discussion. When both lines are "normal", and one is "inferior", can we not agree that, if it is absolutely certain that claimer will notice both lines, and that he can easily work out the difference between them, that it is "irrational" for him to choose the risky line in team play ? Gordon, you are using the word inferior in two different ways. One line is inferior to another, but that does not make the choice of that line "inferior", it makes the choice "irrational". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 19:30:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4F9TkD13629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 19:29:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4F9TYt13577 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 19:29:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-134.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.134]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4F9T7c02626 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:29:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFFD4E9.8E8BC03@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 14:51:53 +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] A Belgian Claim References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFCF5A3.78A9BB88@village.uunet.be> <3AFE9C18.B57F2FC2@village.uunet.be> <000701c0dc4e$7d6b07a0$ea417ad5@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: > > > No it is not. He was not under any impression that he could > > get 10 tricks after a spade return. He had not envisioned a > > spade return when claiming, that's for sure, but once he's > > on the table, he cannot fail to realize there are no routes > > to 10 tricks if he wants to make his contract. > > Oh, nonsense. The ten of clubs might fall on the second round; now he > has a trivial route to ten tricks (club to the nine; red-suit winners > pitching spades; spade to dummy). The thing I really object to in claim > rulings of this kind is that a player who has made an irrational claim > is suddenly supposed to turn into a rational player within the space of > a few moments. The man has claimed ten tricks - this is just as > "irrational" as some line of play he might adopt to attempt to make ten > tricks, ending up with only eight. Yet... > I have stated already that while this is a normal line, there is another one, and I would give 9 tricks even if clubs had been 2-2. > > Do you admit that it is irrational to play for 8 tricks here > > No more or less irrational than it was to claim ten. Both are actions > devoid of reason, yet we dismiss the former as a mere aberration - "he > spoke too quickly without thinking" - and we do not entertain the > possibility of the latter because we consider that a player who spoke > too quickly without thinking would not under any circumstances play too > quickly without thinking (as if no one has ever done that). > Well, I do believe there is a difference between claiming not realizing that defender might return spades, and not realizing you are cut off from hand once you are at the table. So while I agree that there is a piece of doubt as to whether he is rational, your first sentence "no more or less irrational" is siply not true : it is less rational to not realize it after the spade return than it is to not realize it before same. (too many negatives, sorry). > > No, I am not. I believe I am ruling according to the laws > > and the intention of the lawmakers; I believe you and DB > > are expressing great contempt for "bad" claims. > > Not at all. There are bad claimers, just as there are bad players. What > I am expressing great contempt for is the assumption that a man who has > just claimed badly will be supposed to play well. > I have contempt for your assumption that a man that has claimed badly will play irrationally, when the two have no bearing. > > It is you who are treating this man as a felon. He has > > committed the terrible crime of speaking before thinking and > > he shall be judged to play irrationally afterwards. > > Again, why should a man who speaks before he thinks not play before he > thinks? > If the situation is similar, yes, why not. But the situation is not similar. > > Sorry Roger, do you really believe this player would play it > > out for 8 tricks, ever ? > > Who knows? But there is a prima facie case for supposing that a man who > claims ten tricks when he doesn't have them might not take nine tricks > when he does have them. > I don't think this is evidence at all. It's an element, certainly, and I choose to disregard it in my determination of normal lines. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 19:30:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4F9Th913615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 19:29:44 +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 f4F9TVt13559 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 19:29:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-134.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.134]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4F9T5c02602 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:29:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3AFFD366.B386A294@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 14:45:26 +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] A Belgian Claim References: <3AF8FF87.B50CADDC@village.uunet.be> <3AFB9FFF.4090105@interia.pl> <3.0.6.32.20010514141135.00829100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > AG : David has brought to us, at least, the main argument for adjudging > 'rationality' issues with severity : since only faulty claims will have to > be judged, there is *always* the possibility to argue that somebody who is > affected severely enough by nearby passing flying cows (proof : the faulty > claim) will still be affectred at the moment of playing out the hand, > including heavy errors. > > In 98% of the cases, I would be glad to answer the offending player on such > lines, and it would be quite difficult to counter. > > Alain. > I would agree, and I do, if the mistake that prompted the faulty claim had any bearance on the inferior (irrational) line that you want to impose on the player. My Belgian friend made a faulty claim, by not realizing that there was a communication problem. Now if you believe that this is a permanent loss of mind, then by all means, let him in his misconception. But I believe he was just being hasty, and that he would not fail to notice the same blockage once he is stuck to the table. If you want to disagree with that belief, then all I can say was that I was there, and I understood the problem and the reason for thee faulty 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 Tue May 15 19:55:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4F9tB722539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 19:55:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4F9t0t22474 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 19:55:01 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 8CB5C2A47C3; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:54:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 33F242A557B for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:54:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 5928 invoked from network); 15 May 2001 09:53:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 15 May 2001 09:53:54 -0000 Message-ID: <3B00FC77.3060309@interia.pl> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 11:52:55 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pi=E8ce=20touch=E9e?=, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?pi=E8ce=20jou=E9e?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: b70d6acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi gang, If this rule were written in the Laws Of Contract Bridge then these two cases would be a lot easier to rule. But as the Laws are as they are several diferent TDs gave diferent opinions on them so I thought they might be worth discussing. I'm a little bit afraid that I will get plenty of "I would have to be there" replies but I'll try nonetheless. I regret but I don't have hand records either. Case 1 (I've only heard about this one) W N E S 2D ? It is irrelevant but the 2D opener was Wilkosz (6-10, 5+-5+ with at least one major) and wasn't alerted (correctly, this 2D opener isn't alertable in Poland). Now the following sequence of events occured: North put the 2C card on the table WE: Er.., this seems to be an insufficent bid North: OK, no problem I'll change it to 3C (and put the 3C card on the table). WE: Yeah, but I think we'd better call the Dir... North: All right, all right, if you insist I'll change it to 4C! North put out the 4C card from the bidding box commenting "I can afford it!". So what do you do as the TD? The 2C opening in the NS system would be "11-14, 6+C or 5C and 4H/S". The 3C overcall over the 2D opening was natural. Case 2 (the one I was involved in) W E 1S 2C 2H STOP - 3C At this point East apologized for his skip bid warning, the TD wasn't called. W E 1S 2C 2D 3C 3D 4NT (no STOP card this time) 4H Now North pointed out that 4H is insufficient; West said that "of course he meant 5H" and changed 4H to 5H (he had two aces indeed). The TD was called and authorized replacing 4H with 5H. East bid 6NT and went two down so this was the end of story as this was a top for NS. I'm not sure, however, what the TD should do when he was called. Your ruling? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -----------R--E--K--L--A--M--A----------- Szukasz pracy? Chcesz znalezc pracownika? Sprobuj na http://praca.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 20:41:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4FAep300724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 20:40:51 +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-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 f4FAekt00718 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 20:40:46 +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 14zcFW-000GbG-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:40:19 +0100 Message-ID: <1joD4wAfTIA7Ewxn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:22:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Uncertain explanation References: <3B000553.7070801@interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <3B000553.7070801@interia.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 >David Stevenson wrote: >> In at least seven >> of the half a dozen replies >My English is very far from being flawless so please correct me if >I'm wrong: dozen means twelve, doesn't it? So "seven of the half a >dozen" sounds to me like "in at least 130% of replies". > >If this looks like some smartass comment to you that's because it is. :-) >I just couldn't resist; sorry, David. Unless the whole expression >is an English idiom which I don't know which is fairly possible. It was meant to be humorous. Of course I could have said "in at least 130% of replies" and I shall do so next time to avoid ambiguity. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 20:41:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4FAewq00728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 20:40:58 +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-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 f4FAept00723 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 20:40:51 +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 14zcFZ-000GbZ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:40:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:19:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514101519.00b68e80@127.0.0.1> <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3AFBD197.9D4DCBFE@village.uunet.be> <200105111953.f4BJrSt02000@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <002201c0db05$d3bef340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010514101519.00b68e80@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010514164554.00b77ae0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010514164554.00b77ae0@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 11:38 AM 5/14/01, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau writes >> >> >Imagine the referee had seen the touch, and had ruled it unintentional >> >on Henchoz's part. Imagine also that player X, on the opposing team, >> >had been called on an identical play, and the same referee had ruled it >> >an intentional touch and dismissed him. When asked at the press >> >conference after the game, the referree explains, "In my opinion, a >> >player of Mr. Henchoz's class could not have been intending to touch >> >the ball, whereas a player of Mr. X's class, which, in my opinion, is >> >inferior to Mr. Henchoz's, might well have been." Would the sponsoring >> >organization and the fans have accepted this as a fair and impartial >> >pair of rulings? Or would it be the referee who should have been >> >dismissed? >> >> It is difficult to believe that this is analogous. In football, I >>doubt that it would be accepted because it is so patently not the case. > >Why is it not the case? I made up Mr. X, so I'm free to make him not >as good a player as Henchoz. What's more, I'm free to hypothesize that >the officials, the fans, and everyone else knows that he's not as good >a player as Henchoz. And I believe that the referee's calls still >would not be accepted. I believe that judgements should be based on relevant criteria. I do not think that claims should be decided on the ability of the player to fill the score-sheet in properly, because that is an irrelevant criterion. Similarly, I do not believe that ability in football should affect whether a player handles a ball because it is not a relevant criterion. >> In bridge claims, of course, we try to decide what would have happened >>absent the claim. It seems difficult to do that without taking the >>player' ability into account. > >But the law does not tell us to try to decide what would have >happened. It tells us to decide what are all of the "not irrational" >lines consistent with the claim statement, and then to decide which of >those lines leads to the least favorable outcome for the declarer. In my view the Law is telling us to decide what would have happened. No, it does not say so explicitly, but that is its effect. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 21:29:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4FBT2U00808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 21:29:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4FBSut00804 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 21:28:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from fermat.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.1.37]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f4FBSSv13419; Tue, 15 May 2001 12:28:28 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4FBSS416927; Tue, 15 May 2001 12:28:28 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:28:27 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 MAA04215; Tue, 15 May 2001 12:28:27 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA08436; Tue, 15 May 2001 12:28:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:28:26 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200105151128.MAA08436@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, cibor@interia.pl Subject: Re: [BLML] Pièce touchée, pièce jouée X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Case 1 (I've only heard about this one) > > W N E S > 2D ? > > It is irrelevant but the 2D opener was Wilkosz (6-10, > 5+-5+ with at least one major) and wasn't alerted (correctly, > this 2D opener isn't alertable in Poland). > > Now the following sequence of events occured: > > North put the 2C card on the table > WE: Er.., this seems to be an insufficent bid > North: OK, no problem I'll change it to 3C (and put the 3C card on the > table). > WE: Yeah, but I think we'd better call the Dir... > North: All right, all right, if you insist I'll change it to 4C! > > North put out the 4C card from the bidding box commenting "I can afford > it!". > > So what do you do as the TD? > > The 2C opening in the NS system would be "11-14, 6+C or 5C and > 4H/S". The 3C overcall over the 2D opening was natural. Incidental question: did West or North use a stop card? North has attempted to correct to 4C (among others) so we would apply L27B2. L27B2 says to apply L10C1, so we explain the options. I rule that 2C and 3C by North are incontroveribly not conventional; so East may accept 2C, if East does not accept then North may make any sufficient bid or pass. If North bids 3C then South is free to act, 2C is not UI (L27B1a: L16C2 does not apply) but North's further bid of 4C and his remarks are UI to South; and there may be adjustment under L27B1b. If North passes or makes any other sufficient bid, South must pass throughout. North's various calls, attempted corrections and remarks are UI to South, and there may be lead penalties. > Case 2 (the one I was involved in) > > W E > 1S 2C > 2H STOP - 3C > > At this point East apologized for his skip bid warning, the TD > wasn't called. > > W E > 1S 2C > 2D 3C > 3D 4NT (no STOP card this time) > 4H > > Now North pointed out that 4H is insufficient; West said > that "of course he meant 5H" and changed 4H to 5H (he had > two aces indeed). The TD was called and authorized replacing > 4H with 5H. > > East bid 6NT and went two down so this was the end of story > as this was a top for NS. > > I'm not sure, however, what the TD should do when he was called. > Your ruling? The "STOP" before 3C is UI, West is to carefully avoid taking any advantage ...; he may not choose from LA, one which is demonstrably suggested ... . The failure to "STOP" before 4NT is UI, West is to ... . Did West say that he pulled the wrong card out (without being asked), if so (and the TD is convinced): allow the change to 5H (L25A). Otherwise, 5H is (incontroveribly) conventional, so West may pass or make any sufficient bid and East must pass for the remainder of the auction. L23 may apply, if West could have known that East/West could only make 10 tricks (perhaps he had opened on a eight count: Axxxx-xx-Axxxx-x), the TD might award an adjusted score of 6NT-2. 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 May 15 21:53:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4FBqxi00879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 21:52:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4FBqqt00874 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 21:52:53 +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 14zdNI-0006ru-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 May 2001 12:52:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:36:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?[BLML]_Pi=E8ce_touch=E9e,_pi=E8ce_jou=E9e?= References: <3B00FC77.3060309@interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <3B00FC77.3060309@interia.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 >Hi gang, > > If this rule were written in the Laws Of Contract Bridge then these two >cases would be a lot easier to rule. But as the Laws are as they are >several diferent TDs gave diferent opinions on them so I thought they >might be worth discussing. > >I'm a little bit afraid that I will get plenty of "I would have to be there" >replies but I'll try nonetheless. I regret but I don't have hand records >either. > >Case 1 (I've only heard about this one) > >W N E S >2D ? > >It is irrelevant but the 2D opener was Wilkosz (6-10, >5+-5+ with at least one major) and wasn't alerted (correctly, >this 2D opener isn't alertable in Poland). > >Now the following sequence of events occured: > >North put the 2C card on the table >WE: Er.., this seems to be an insufficent bid >North: OK, no problem I'll change it to 3C (and put the 3C card on the >table). >WE: Yeah, but I think we'd better call the Dir... >North: All right, all right, if you insist I'll change it to 4C! > >North put out the 4C card from the bidding box commenting "I can afford >it!". > >The 2C opening in the NS system would be "11-14, 6+C or 5C and >4H/S". The 3C overcall over the 2D opening was natural. > >So what do you do as the TD? 1 Tell North it is better to call the Director than try to make his own rulings. 2 Cancel the 3C bid and tell South it is UI to him. 3 Cancel the 4C bid and tell South it is UI to him. 4 Take North away from the table and discover what the 2C bid meant. 5 Give East the chance to accept the 2C bid. 6 If the 2C bid was intended as a natural overcall give North the chance to bid 3C without penalty. 7 If the 2C bid was intended as a natural overcall give North the chance to pass or make any sufficient bid except 3C, partner being silenced throughout. 8 If the 2C bid was intended as an artificial call give North the chance to pass or make any sufficient bid, partner being silenced throughout. 9 If 7 or 8 applies then apply Lead Penalties unless North becomes declarer or bids clubs. No, I do not mean I do it in this order or in this fashion, but all the above is what I do. >Case 2 (the one I was involved in) > >W E >1S 2C >2H STOP - 3C > >At this point East apologized for his skip bid warning, the TD >wasn't called. > >W E >1S 2C >2D 3C >3D 4NT (no STOP card this time) >4H > >Now North pointed out that 4H is insufficient; West said >that "of course he meant 5H" and changed 4H to 5H (he had >two aces indeed). The TD was called and authorized replacing >4H with 5H. > >East bid 6NT and went two down so this was the end of story >as this was a top for NS. > >I'm not sure, however, what the TD should do when he was called. >Your ruling? 1 Ask North what call he intended to make at the moment he reached for his bidding box. 2 If he intended to bid 5H allow it to be changed. by saying "of course he meant 5H" when the insufficient bid was pointed out he has convinced me that he attempted to change without pause for thought, but not necessarily convinced me it was inadvertent. 3 Tell all the players the desirability of calling the Director after infractions. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 22:31:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4FCUp302301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 22:30:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4FCUit02297 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 22:30:45 +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 OAA21086; Tue, 15 May 2001 14:30:05 +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 OAA24160; Tue, 15 May 2001 14:29:46 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010515143357.0082f6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:33:57 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <3AFFD279.6C8FC36A@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:41 14/05/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Gordon, you are using the word inferior in two different >ways. >One line is inferior to another, but that does not make the >choice of that line "inferior", it makes the choice >"irrational". AG : I would be more thrifty in the attribution of the 'irrational' quality. Gordon's 'a is inferior to b' is the game-strategical 'a is dominated by b', eg 'a can lose, can't win vs b'. Playing along line 'a' will usually not be irrational. It would only be inferior, or careless, or whatever, because it is quite possible (and by no means absurd or irrational) not to notice that 'a' is dominated by 'b'. Take the usual example of AK9xx facing Q10xx. If declarer faces his hand, not mentioning he will play A first, there is a strong hint that he didn't realise (or realize) that playing the Q first in inferior (Gordon's sense). I would rule that playing the Q first is inferior (your sense) and careless but not irrational, and that the player might well have played that way, regardless of what a well-known Belgian TD (with initials JB) once said when I called him. If the player *knew* how to play this combination, why didn't he state it ??? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 22:31:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4FCVSo02313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 22:31:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4FCVNt02309 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 22:31:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.202]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010515123057.SWIF283.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 13:30:57 +0100 Message-ID: <001701c0dd3b$59fdfb40$ca04ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Pièce touchée, pièce jouée Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:34:13 +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: "Anne Jones" To: "David Stevenson" Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pièce touchée, pièce jouée > Please explain 6 below David. > > I thought "If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid > in the same denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is > corrected by any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the > offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call" > > I would not have thought that the intention of the bidder had any > relevance. > > Anne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 12:36 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Pièce touchée, pièce jouée > > > > Konrad Ciborowski writes > > >Hi gang, > > > > > > If this rule were written in the Laws Of Contract Bridge then > these two > > >cases would be a lot easier to rule. But as the Laws are as they are > > >several diferent TDs gave diferent opinions on them so I thought they > > >might be worth discussing. > > > > > >I'm a little bit afraid that I will get plenty of "I would have to be > there" > > >replies but I'll try nonetheless. I regret but I don't have hand > records > > >either. > > > > > >Case 1 (I've only heard about this one) > > > > > >W N E S > > >2D ? > > > > > >It is irrelevant but the 2D opener was Wilkosz (6-10, > > >5+-5+ with at least one major) and wasn't alerted (correctly, > > >this 2D opener isn't alertable in Poland). > > > > > >Now the following sequence of events occured: > > > > > >North put the 2C card on the table > > >WE: Er.., this seems to be an insufficent bid > > >North: OK, no problem I'll change it to 3C (and put the 3C card on > the > > >table). > > >WE: Yeah, but I think we'd better call the Dir... > > >North: All right, all right, if you insist I'll change it to 4C! > > > > > >North put out the 4C card from the bidding box commenting "I can > afford > > >it!". > > > > > >The 2C opening in the NS system would be "11-14, 6+C or 5C and > > >4H/S". The 3C overcall over the 2D opening was natural. > > > > > >So what do you do as the TD? > > > > 1 Tell North it is better to call the Director than try to make his > own > > rulings. > > 2 Cancel the 3C bid and tell South it is UI to him. > > 3 Cancel the 4C bid and tell South it is UI to him. > > 4 Take North away from the table and discover what the 2C bid meant. > > 5 Give East the chance to accept the 2C bid. > > 6 If the 2C bid was intended as a natural overcall give North the > > chance to bid 3C without penalty. > > 7 If the 2C bid was intended as a natural overcall give North the > > chance to pass or make any sufficient bid except 3C, partner being > > silenced throughout. > > 8 If the 2C bid was intended as an artificial call give North the > > chance to pass or make any sufficient bid, partner being silenced > > throughout. > > 9 If 7 or 8 applies then apply Lead Penalties unless North becomes > > declarer or bids clubs. > > > > No, I do not mean I do it in this order or in this fashion, but all > > the above is what I do. > > > > >Case 2 (the one I was involved in) > > > > > >W E > > >1S 2C > > >2H STOP - 3C > > > > > >At this point East apologized for his skip bid warning, the TD > > >wasn't called. > > > > > >W E > > >1S 2C > > >2D 3C > > >3D 4NT (no STOP card this time) > > >4H > > > > > >Now North pointed out that 4H is insufficient; West said > > >that "of course he meant 5H" and changed 4H to 5H (he had > > >two aces indeed). The TD was called and authorized replacing > > >4H with 5H. > > > > > >East bid 6NT and went two down so this was the end of story > > >as this was a top for NS. > > > > > >I'm not sure, however, what the TD should do when he was called. > > >Your ruling? > > > > 1 Ask North what call he intended to make at the moment he reached > for > > his bidding box. > > 2 If he intended to bid 5H allow it to be changed. by saying "of > > course he meant 5H" when the insufficient bid was pointed out he has > > convinced me that he attempted to change without pause for thought, > but > > not necessarily convinced me it was inadvertent. > > 3 Tell all the players the desirability of calling the Director after > > infractions. > > > > -- > > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > > -- > > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au > with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 15 22:53:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4FCr0F02353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 22:53:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4FCqrt02349 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 22:52:54 +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 OAA24682; Tue, 15 May 2001 14:52:15 +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 OAA12215; Tue, 15 May 2001 14:51:57 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010515145607.0082c890@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:56:07 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[BLML]_Pi=E8ce_touch=E9e,_pi=E8ce_jou=E9e?= In-Reply-To: References: <3B00FC77.3060309@interia.pl> <3B00FC77.3060309@interia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:36 15/05/01 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>Case 1 (I've only heard about this one) >> >>W N E S >>2D ? >> >>It is irrelevant but the 2D opener was Wilkosz (6-10, >>5+-5+ with at least one major) and wasn't alerted (correctly, >>this 2D opener isn't alertable in Poland). >> >>Now the following sequence of events occured: >> >>North put the 2C card on the table >>WE: Er.., this seems to be an insufficent bid >>North: OK, no problem I'll change it to 3C (and put the 3C card on the >>table). >>WE: Yeah, but I think we'd better call the Dir... >>North: All right, all right, if you insist I'll change it to 4C! >> >>North put out the 4C card from the bidding box commenting "I can afford >>it!". >> >>The 2C opening in the NS system would be "11-14, 6+C or 5C and >>4H/S". The 3C overcall over the 2D opening was natural. >> >>So what do you do as the TD? > >1 Tell North it is better to call the Director than try to make his own >rulings. >2 Cancel the 3C bid and tell South it is UI to him. >3 Cancel the 4C bid and tell South it is UI to him. >4 Take North away from the table and discover what the 2C bid meant. >5 Give East the chance to accept the 2C bid. >6 If the 2C bid was intended as a natural overcall give North the >chance to bid 3C without penalty. >7 If the 2C bid was intended as a natural overcall give North the >chance to pass or make any sufficient bid except 3C, partner being >silenced throughout. >8 If the 2C bid was intended as an artificial call give North the >chance to pass or make any sufficient bid, partner being silenced >throughout. >9 If 7 or 8 applies then apply Lead Penalties unless North becomes >declarer or bids clubs. AG: I'd add 10) If 7 or 8 applies, then L23 could appear on the scene. 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 May 16 02:08:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4FG7QD08605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 02:07:26 +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 (oe72.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.207]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4FG7It08559 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 02:07:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 15 May 2001 09:06:49 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.165.237] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3AFFD279.6C8FC36A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 11:02:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 May 2001 16:06:49.0073 (UTC) FILETIME=[0C125610:01C0DD59] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 7:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn | Gordon Bower wrote: | > | > On Sun, 13 May 2001, Herman De Wael wrote: | > > | > > I want you all to try the following thought experiment with | > > any of the claims that you are uncertain of. Consider them | > > again, but with claimer remaining absolutely silent. Now I | > > know DB will then have him play all cards in the most | > > inopportune manner, but that is not how claims are handled. | > > In a private message, Roger has told me that the Belgian | > > declarer is only allowed to play lines that have a | > > possibility of 10 tricks in them, despite the fact that he's | > > in 3NT in team play Such a collection of words is nonsense. I make efforts to avoid nonsense and acknowledge that I am not always successful. To be clear, I did not say such a thing. regards roger pewick | Herman DE WAEL -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 05:10:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4FJ9rY04609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 05:09:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4FJ9jt04561 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 05:09:46 +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 LAA26302 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:09:21 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 11:08:35 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <3AFFD279.6C8FC36A@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 14 May 2001, Herman De Wael wrote: > [GRB said before:] > > > > If claimer says nothing, and there is a choice between a > > guaranteeing-9-tricks line and a 10-or-8-trick line, don't we *ALL* agree > > that he gets 9 tricks when the 10-or-8 line is working, and 8 when the > > 10-or-8 line is failing? I can't imagine a clearer example of "two normal > > lines," one possibly inferior due to the form of scoring. > > > > This is an interesting point, and merits further discussion. > > When both lines are "normal", and one is "inferior", can we > not agree that, if it is absolutely certain that claimer > will notice both lines, and that he can easily work out the > difference between them, that it is "irrational" for him to > choose the risky line in team play ? Yes, we cannot agree on that. :) If we allow the "it's irrational to intentionally take the riskier / lower expectation / whatever line" argument we find ourselves in the position of awarding our claims on the basis of flawless declarer play! I think Alain's post has muddied what I was trying to say even further. I was NOT using the word "inferior" in two different ways. Let me take another stab at it. We'll let Line A guarantee exactly 9 tricks in 3NT, and Line B lead to either 8 or 10 tricks depending on (for the sake of definiteness and an example to follow below) who holds CK. I refuse to consider either line irrational, at any form of scoring. Each is a line that, against some lie of the opposing cards, leads to a better result than the other one does. One or the other of these normal lines might be "inferior", in the sense of offering poorer chances for a good score, than the other, depending on a wide variety of circumstances most of which are not going to be immediately evident when I walk up to the table. At matchpoints if 3NT is the normal contract, there's very little to choose between the two lines. At teams if 3NT is the normal contract and I am ~92% sure the CK is favourably placed, there's not much difference in IMP expectation though there is a difference in the range of variation. At matchpoints if the field is in 2NT, or at teams with every reason to think it's about a 50-50 proposition, guaranteeing nine tricks will gain in the long run. At matchpoints if the field is in a laydown 4H, or at the last board of a team match when you believe you are down by 1 IMP, trying for ten tricks offers better chances. Even in the cases where one line is a textbook play and the other line would be characterized as foolhardy I see even quite good players take the foolish one with considerable frequency (would you like to see a team scorecard of mine playing against stronger opponents where I got 3 -1s in a row by guaranteeing game contracts? It happened a few years ago.) Now, let me offer an example hand. The bidding was Pass-Pass-Pass-1NT-Pass-3NT. Dummy S JTxx H KQx D Axx C xxx S 98 H AJx D KQTxx C AQx The defence starts with four rounds of spades, East making uninformative discards on the the third and fourth rounds. Declarer players a diamond to the king and and a diamond to the ace, noting the fall of the jack on his left. Now he claims. If dealer has shown up with SAKQxx and DJ yet failed to open the bidding (playing standard), can you honestly tell me you STILL will refuse to take the club finesse at teams? I would be somewhat surprised if an expert claimed in this situation (with or without a statement), but if his opponents believed he was competent and the CK really was onside, the claim is likely not to be contested. What if declarer is "sure" he's seen 10HCP on his left, when in fact the spades were AQxxx opposite Kx, and the first trick was won on his right? Now he is claiming on a "finese he'd be insane not to take", so he thinks, when in fact the club guess is close to 50-50. How many tricks are you giving him if CK is onside? How many if offside? How many hours are you going to spend interrogating declarer about his state of mind? I am awarding a plain, simple 8 if the finesse losees and 9 if it wins regardless what he was thinking. If he says "10 tricks", he gets either 10 or 8 (Let's suppose we know from the discards or the bidding that a singleton club king is impossible), if he says "making", he makes exactly. I don't believe my answer depends on the form of scoring. It isn't my business to try to get into declarer's thought processes and find out why he wants to try for a risky overtrick in a team game or why he doesn't want to try for a risky overtrick in a matchpoint game. Declarer has an opportunity to tell me whatever I need to hear: with his claim statement and, conceivably, his clarification of it. (If an expert claimed 10 after really seeing SAKQ DJ, and immediately explained to his novice non-hand-counting opponent why he knew where the CK was when questioned, I'd allow it.) GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 09:16:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4FNCCo02108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 09:12:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4FNC6t02103 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 09:12:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4FN9nd28503 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 19:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010514142150.0082de60@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010511181248.0082b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010514142150.0082de60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:06:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Polish Club Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Well, maybe this restrictive policy is the main reason why Americans are so >surprised at the sight of moderately unexpected systems. In this case, one >should ask for a change in American convention charts, not in >international ones. Probably. Not sure the ACBL would go along, though. :-) I've been reading George Rosencranz latest wrinkles to Romex, in _Godfrey's Stairway to the Stars_. Basically, it a forcing club system, with elements from Precision, Blue Team Club, and Romex. I'd like to try it, but there are two openings that aren't allowed on the GCC: 2H to show the three suiter short in diamonds, and 2NT to show a 3 level preempt in either minor (leaving the 3minor opening to show a good suit, so partner can more easily decide whether to try 3NT). Both openings are Mid Chart in the ACBL, I think. The 2NT opening is Brown Sticker under WBF rules. I doubt the ACBL will change the designation of either of those any time soon, either. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOwG3rr2UW3au93vOEQIwugCfQ6U0HkoVegYSW7Eph8a0+cdHJI0AoN/K ltbAo3eKCxCwD/PGHFcSFjMz =Z6se -----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 May 16 10:14:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4G0ERe04719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:14:27 +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 f4G0EKt04677 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:14:21 +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 14zowp-0006Dj-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 May 2001 00:13:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:45:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Pice touche, pice joue References: <001701c0dd3b$59fdfb40$ca04ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001701c0dd3b$59fdfb40$ca04ff3e@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 >To: "David Stevenson" >> Please explain 6 below David. >> >> I thought "If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid >> in the same denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is >> corrected by any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the >> offenders partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call" >> >> I would not have thought that the intention of the bidder had any >> relevance. If he bid 2C as a natural bid then it was not conventional, surely? Ok, the default if you cannot determine is to treat it as conventional, but that does not mean you do not investigate. Perhaps intention is the wrong word. Why did he bid it? >> > 6 If the 2C bid was intended as a natural overcall give North the >> > chance to bid 3C without penalty. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 11:03:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4G13Qd22043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 11:03:26 +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 f4G13Jt22006 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 11:03:20 +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 14zpiG-000PSr-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 May 2001 01:02:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 01:44:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed cards References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot writes >David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] wrote: >> So a player exposes a few cards during the auction. Easy peasy. L24, >>partner must pass once, if he becomes a defender they become MPCs [At >>declarer's option, ok] and L50D1 means they are UI [except for knowledge >>that they must be played, ok]. >> >> BUT! >> >> Suppose the auction continues because the opponents bid or double, >>offender's partner passes once, and now gets another turn to call, the >>auction is not over, and ..... >> >> Are the exposed cards UI to partner? >L16: Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information >from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a >call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. > >Showing cards to partner is clearly not one of the by this law allowed >methods of transferring information to partner. So I would say yes, >the exposed cards are UI to partner (and AI to opponents, by the same L16). Showing cards to partner is clearly not allowed. But in this case a player has made a mistake that has quite a stiff penalty. So it is hardly something to try to gain advantage [and L72B1 would come to our rescue if so]. But damage limitation is reasonable when legal. I am not convinced that the exposed cards are UI. While we tend to think of such things as UI automatically, generally there is something that tells us, for example L16C or L50D1. But what tells us this is UI? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 16:32:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4G6W0303827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 16:32:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta03.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4G6Vst03793 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 16:31:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from master ([63.60.238.252]) by mta03.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20010516063129.MWAK4037.mta03.mail.mel.aone.net.au@master> for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 16:31:29 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010516163026.007b5e40@pop.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@pop.ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:30:26 +1000 To: From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] More faulty directing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I promised to submit the following for judgement: North -- -- Q 10 9 8 -- East x xx J x Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer states the rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about the outstanding J. I state that 3/4 of the time she will lose a trick to the J, and 1/4 of the time she will play the Q and take all tricks, so I award 3/4 of MPs for 5D going off 1, and 1/4 of the MPs for 5D making. Both sides are happy. The only problem is that Australian directors are not yet allowed to rule using 12C3 (I don't think). Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 18:09:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4G87nW07797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:07:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4G87gt07755 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:07:42 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA23518; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:07:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed May 16 10:06:37 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 <01K3MM3IDMIC006K1R@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:06:53 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:05:57 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:06:51 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing To: "'Tony Musgrove'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B85B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It certainly is a decision which keeps everybody happy, as does average+ for both sides, which seems to become a popular ruling nowadays. But in my opinion it is not a decision that is 'allowed' when applying L68-71. Yes, I know that AC can do what they want, having 12C3 available. This is a zero-one decision: is playing something else than the DQ careless or irrational, or, what I prefer here without looking at the footnote: is playing something else than the Q normal? The answer is 'yes' or 'no' and not 'normal in three out of four cases' and 'not normal in one out of four cases' which you seem to say with your ruling. What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before we have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to know your decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion about the play of the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play continues. (my assumption is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' means she thought all her trumps to be good). ton > I promised to submit the following for judgement: > > North > -- > -- > Q 10 9 8 > -- East > x > xx > J > x > > > Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer > states the > rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about the > outstanding J. > I state that 3/4 of the time she will lose a trick to the J, > and 1/4 of the > time she will play the Q and take all tricks, so I award 3/4 > of MPs for 5D > going off 1, and 1/4 of the MPs for 5D making. Both sides > are happy. The > only problem is that Australian directors are not yet allowed > to rule using > 12C3 (I don't think). > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 18:59:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4G8xeN25677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:59:40 +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 f4G8xXt25641 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:59:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-180.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.180]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4G8x1n08816 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:59:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B00FE82.F60ABF4F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:01:38 +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 out of turn References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: > > >Herman De Wael (Sun 13 May 2001 15:54) writes: > > > >Definition of "claim breaking down" : > >Point at which, to the player who has claimed, it becomes > >clear that the line that he has stated will not achieve the > >desired result. > >No need to prove this, the words "claim breaking down" are > >mine, and I can tell you what they mean if I wish. > > Indeed, but not if you wish others to follow your arguments. I would have > thought to most people the claim has "broken down" when it is no longer > possible to play the hand in the manner specified by the claimer. > Well, that is not what the Laws say, IMHO. > The fundamental difference between our approaches appears to be that I > believe a player who claims is committed to the line he has specified in the > same way that he is committed in the auction to a call once 'made' or in the > play to a card once played. In all of these cases it is not relevant > whether or not the call, play or claim is *rational*, it is a committed > action. Well, that is not in the Laws. It is the TD who decides, not the claim statement as such. > A player should not be claiming "if there is any doubt as to the > outcome of the hand" and he is not permitted a second shot (L70D). He should not, but he does ! > I > should add that, outside of BLML, I have yet to come across a TD who has > suggested otherwise. > Sorry, then maybe you have not met directors who rule as per the Laws. > You OTOH seem to regard the stated line as a sort of 'statement of intent' > which as TD you feel free to amend if you are convinced that, during the > course of playing it, he would have come up with a better line. > Isn't that what the laws say "unless to not do so would be irrational?". We all agree that a player is allowed to overruff when suddenly a trick is ruffed by an outstanding forgotten trump. Well, this is just an extension of the same idea. > >Don't you see that you all are being more harsh on claimers > >that do state a line than on those that don't ? > > Not at all. "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of > clarification..."(L68C). A claimer does not, therefore, have the right to > remain silent and in my experience he usually says *something* unless he has > all top cards when "the rest are all good" may be taken as said. If he > does remain silent or gives a sketchy statement of clarification this should > never be to his advantage. The TD will have to guess his intentions and > rule any doubtful points in favour of the non-claimers. > You said it: "doubtful points". I am in no doubt whatsoever that the belgian declarer would make 9 tricks, or 10, but never 8. So I award the least of the normal lines, and 9 tricks. No doubt. It is extraordinary how people can continue to rule harsher than needed, when the Laws say that equity must be done (L70A). I am getting tired of this discussion. I am getting especially tired at the fact that all other sensible directors out there are not standing by me in telling off this small band of upstarts who seem to be the majority. Please others, do tell me that I am not a lunatic. My blood pressure needs 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 Wed May 16 19:00:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4G908F25824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 19:00:08 +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 f4G8xtt25757 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:59:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-180.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.180]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4G8xJn09035 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:59:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B00FED3.405FCE15@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:02:59 +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 out of turn References: <200105142030.NAA07634@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 haven't been following the arguments lately, but I wanted to comment > on the "broken down" term: > > AKQ > AKQJT > -- > -- > > 9 > 85 > -- > 876432 > > Playing in a spade contract, South claims, saying, "I'll cash the > hearts and pitch clubs on them." However, he's forgotten that a trump > is still out; specifically, East has the 8 of spades. East also has > four hearts. > > If South started cashing hearts, East would play his trump on the > fifth heart. If we adopt Herman's definition, it would become obvious > at that point that his line is not going to work, and the claim has > broken down at that point. If we adopt your definition, however (and > if I'm understanding it correctly), the claim has not broken down > because South is still able to pitch a club on this heart. > > I believe "most people" would follow Herman's definition, and they > would let South have all the tricks because it's obvious he would > overruff the heart. Perhaps you would too---I'm not sure. I just > wanted to point out that whatever definition we adopt for this term > should accomplish what we want it to accomplish in this sort of > layout. > Thanks Adam, there is at least one sensible director out there still reading this discussion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 19:00:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4G90Aw25833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 19:00:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4G8xvt25771 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-180.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.180]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4G8xTn09129 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:59:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B00FFB7.825083EB@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:06:47 +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 out of turn References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: > > > Whatever the TD decides, however, the point here is that I am happy to > accept that declarer's claim has "broken down" when his fifth heart which he > has claimed as a winner is ruffed. Thanks Chas. > If you rule that he would have spotted > this, it would be irrational for him not to correct his stated line and > overruff. It is general practice to rule that he indeed will spot this. > This is IMO quite different from the case under discussion where > declarer has made an appalling claim and Herman believes he should be > allowed to correct it simply on the basis that at some stage while playing > it he would be bound to realise the error of his ways. > Why do you call this an "appaling claim". It is exactly the sort of thing that happens quite a lot. You "feel" that play is over and speak too soon. Nothing appaling about it. You lose the option that defenders are kind to you and return a red one after all. You lose the option that clubs are 2-2, because it would be normal to duck the first heart. But you should not lose more than that and be deemed to play irrationally, simply because you believe it is irrational to claim in this position. Careless, yes, irrational, certainly not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 19:09:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4G99QG29007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 19:09:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4G99It28965 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 19:09:19 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 16 May 2001 11:03:14 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Exposed cards Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:03:04 +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 David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] wrote: >Martin Sinot writes >>David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] wrote: >> >>> So a player exposes a few cards during the auction. Easy peasy. L24, >>>partner must pass once, if he becomes a defender they become MPCs [At >>>declarer's option, ok] and L50D1 means they are UI [except for knowledge >>>that they must be played, ok]. >>> >>> BUT! >>> >>> Suppose the auction continues because the opponents bid or double, >>>offender's partner passes once, and now gets another turn to call, the >>>auction is not over, and ..... >>> >>> Are the exposed cards UI to partner? >> >>L16: Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information >>from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a >>call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. >> >>Showing cards to partner is clearly not one of the by this law allowed >>methods of transferring information to partner. So I would say yes, >>the exposed cards are UI to partner (and AI to opponents, by the same L16). > > Showing cards to partner is clearly not allowed. But in this case a >player has made a mistake that has quite a stiff penalty. So it is >hardly something to try to gain advantage [and L72B1 would come to our >rescue if so]. But damage limitation is reasonable when legal. > > I am not convinced that the exposed cards are UI. While we tend to >think of such things as UI automatically, generally there is something >that tells us, for example L16C or L50D1. But what tells us this is UI? Apart from L16, nothing, as far as I can see. On the other hand, in a previous version of the Lawbook I remember a law saying explicitly that information from an infraction (such as withdrawn bids, penalty cards) is allowed if a penalty has been paid. This law has been removed from the current Lawbook (and indeed, this information is now UI, as mentioned in the relevant laws). One would expect that a similar statement is added to L24, but for some reason this has not been done. I am not convinced by the stiff penalty argument; the penalty for MPCs is also rather stiff, but information from these cards is still UI. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 19:14:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4G9EE900693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 19:14:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4G9E7t00656 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 19:14:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.73]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010516091341.UHWE283.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:13:41 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c0dde8$fc81f3a0$4904ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B85B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:17:09 +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 I consider that declarer, thinking that all the cards are high, would merely be careless to play the wrong suit first, having a choice, but that given no choice of suit, would be irrational to play other than the top card first. I therefore award declarer 4 tricks. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Tony Musgrove'" ; Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 9:06 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing > It certainly is a decision which keeps everybody happy, as does average+ for > both sides, which seems to become a popular ruling nowadays. But in my > opinion it is not a decision that is 'allowed' when applying L68-71. Yes, I > know that AC can do what they want, having 12C3 available. This is a > zero-one decision: is playing something else than the DQ careless or > irrational, or, what I prefer here without looking at the footnote: is > playing something else than the Q normal? The answer is 'yes' or 'no' and > not 'normal in three out of four cases' and 'not normal in one out of four > cases' which you seem to say with your ruling. > > > What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this > situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before we > have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to know your > decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion about the play of > the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play continues. (my assumption > is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' means she thought all her trumps to > be good). > > ton > > > > I promised to submit the following for judgement: > > > > North > > -- > > -- > > Q 10 9 8 > > -- East > > x > > xx > > J > > x > > > > > > Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer > > states the > > rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about the > > outstanding J. > > I state that 3/4 of the time she will lose a trick to the J, > > and 1/4 of the > > time she will play the Q and take all tricks, so I award 3/4 > > of MPs for 5D > > going off 1, and 1/4 of the MPs for 5D making. Both sides > > are happy. The > > only problem is that Australian directors are not yet allowed > > to rule using > > 12C3 (I don't think). > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tony (Sydney) > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 19:34:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4G9Xhj07449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 19:33:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4G9XZt07403 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 19:33:36 +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 LAA02354; Wed, 16 May 2001 11:29:33 +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 LAA06243; Wed, 16 May 2001 11:32:35 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010516113643.008db320@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:36:43 +0200 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Tony Musgrove'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B85B@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:06 16/05/01 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: >It certainly is a decision which keeps everybody happy, as does average+ for >both sides, which seems to become a popular ruling nowadays. But in my >opinion it is not a decision that is 'allowed' when applying L68-71. Yes, I >know that AC can do what they want, having 12C3 available. This is a >zero-one decision: is playing something else than the DQ careless or >irrational, or, what I prefer here without looking at the footnote: is >playing something else than the Q normal? The answer is 'yes' or 'no' and >not 'normal in three out of four cases' and 'not normal in one out of four >cases' which you seem to say with your ruling. > > >What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this >situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before we >have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to know your >decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion about the play of >the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play continues. (my assumption >is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' means she thought all her trumps to >be good). AG : in my view, the 'normal' play of the cards in a suit that doesn't need any specific handling is high to low. Would you really call for the small diamonds, then the Queen ? Very few would. I would have let South go away with his error. 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 May 16 20:13:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GADVm21394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 20:13:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4GADQt21361 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 20:13:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010516101252.MQZV3508967.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]>; Wed, 16 May 2001 22:12:52 +1200 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: Tony Musgrove CC: Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:12:50 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010516101252.MQZV3508967.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Just because you can (or can't in this case) use L12C3 to award an equitable adjusted score why would you want to do so. L70C. There Is an Outstanding Trump When a trump remains in one of the opponents’ hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. Failed to Mention Trump claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. Was Probably Unaware of Trump it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand, and 3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play. All conditions are met and the director shall award a trick to the opponents. The only possible objection could be that it is irrational to play a low trump first. But I do not accept that. If a player believes all cards are high any order will do. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 20:20:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GAK0723611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 20:20:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GAJst23607 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 20:19:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA10744; Wed, 16 May 2001 12:19:14 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA12296; Wed, 16 May 2001 12:18:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010516122303.008dc940@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:23:03 +0200 To: Martin Sinot , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Exposed cards 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 11:03 16/05/01 +0200, Martin Sinot wrote: >David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] wrote: >>Martin Sinot writes >>>David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] wrote: >>> >>>> So a player exposes a few cards during the auction. Easy peasy. L24, >>>>partner must pass once, if he becomes a defender they become MPCs [At >>>>declarer's option, ok] and L50D1 means they are UI [except for knowledge >>>>that they must be played, ok]. >Apart from L16, nothing, as far as I can see. On the other hand, in a >previous version of the Lawbook I remember a law saying explicitly that >information from an infraction (such as withdrawn bids, penalty cards) >is allowed if a penalty has been paid. This law has been removed from >the current Lawbook (and indeed, this information is now UI, as mentioned >in the relevant laws). One would expect that a similar statement is >added to L24, but for some reason this has not been done. I am not >convinced by the stiff penalty argument; the penalty for MPCs is also >rather stiff, but information from these cards is still UI. AG : there are cases when the pass-once and MPC penalties are not that much drastic, but the UI is quite essential. That's why the UI restrictions are sitll there. Let's look at the following case : West East Axxxxx KQxxx xx Kxx -- AKQx AQxxx x West opens 1S ; North bids 2H ; at the same time, two small hearts fall from West's hand without 'external sollicitation'. East must pass. West now reopens with 3C (IMO he is allowed to know that East had a penalty to pay, could have had to pass a huge hand, and thus is allowed to reopen on marginal hands). East bids 4NT, and receives an answer of 5NT, 2 Aces and a void. Now there is UI to East that the void is in Diamonds, not Hearts. Since a Heart void would nearly guarantee a 7S contract, my view is that bidding only 6S could be called 'use of improper information'. Of course, if East had at his disposal the 6C bid to ask which is the short suit, or 6D to say 'if your void is Hearts, bid 7', nobody could ask him to commit felo de se by bidding 7 directly, but absent these gadgets, would not 7S be an alternative to 6S ? Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 20:37:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GAb2w23656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 20:37:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4GAatt23652 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 20:36:56 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 16 May 2001 12:36:27 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Exposed cards Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:36:19 +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 alain gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] wrote: >AG : there are cases when the pass-once and MPC penalties are not that much >drastic, but the UI is quite essential. That's why the UI restrictions are >sitll there. >Let's look at the following case : > > West East > > Axxxxx KQxxx > xx Kxx > -- AKQx > AQxxx x > >West opens 1S ; North bids 2H ; at the same time, two small hearts fall >from West's hand without 'external sollicitation'. East must pass. West now >reopens with 3C (IMO he is allowed to know that East had a penalty to pay, >could have had to pass a huge hand, and thus is allowed to reopen on >marginal hands). East bids 4NT, and receives an answer of 5NT, 2 Aces and a >void. >Now there is UI to East that the void is in Diamonds, not Hearts. Since a >Heart void would nearly guarantee a 7S contract, my view is that bidding >only 6S could be called 'use of improper information'. Of course, if East >had at his disposal the 6C bid to ask which is the short suit, or 6D to say >'if your void is Hearts, bid 7', nobody could ask him to commit felo de se >by bidding 7 directly, but absent these gadgets, would not 7S be an >alternative to 6S ? > >Regards, > > Alain. Seems a good argument to me why it should be UI. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 22:09:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GC8hp26805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 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 smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f4GC8Zt26761 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 22:08:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 1145 invoked from network); 16 May 2001 12:01:56 -0000 Received: from mail1.ha-net.ptd.net (HELO mail.ptd.net) ([207.44.96.65]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 16 May 2001 12:01:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 7679 invoked from network); 16 May 2001 12:08:08 -0000 Received: from brian ([24.229.82.38]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 16 May 2001 12:08:08 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:08:14 -0400 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: <7mq4gtojhfjdh354qcq9uq8tsljp1recpc@4ax.com> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B85B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B85B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 16 May 2001 10:06:51 +0200, Ton Kooijman wrote: > >What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this >situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before we >have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to know your >decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion about the play of >the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play continues. (my assumption >is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' means she thought all her trumps to >be good). > Maybe my memory is failing me - but I thought this, or at least a similar question, was discussed on BLML a few months back, and the consensus was that while a claimer could be forced to play any suit first in the absence of a claim statement to the contrary, it was irrational to force the claimer to play the selected suit other than from the top down? As declarer or defender (I haven't directed for some years) I would expect declarer to get all four tricks in the situation above given that the hand with Q1098 is on lead, or if the other cards are such that declarer can get to dummy with a non-trump and there is no possibility of the jack being used to overruff. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 23:46:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GDkIT00298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 23:46:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GDk8t00284 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 23:46:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-199.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.199]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4GDjec01948 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 15:45:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B024ADE.68D15953@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:39:42 +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] More faulty directing References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B85B@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: > > It certainly is a decision which keeps everybody happy, as does average+ for > both sides, which seems to become a popular ruling nowadays. But in my > opinion it is not a decision that is 'allowed' when applying L68-71. Yes, I > know that AC can do what they want, having 12C3 available. This is a > zero-one decision: is playing something else than the DQ careless or > irrational, or, what I prefer here without looking at the footnote: is > playing something else than the Q normal? The answer is 'yes' or 'no' and > not 'normal in three out of four cases' and 'not normal in one out of four > cases' which you seem to say with your ruling. > Is it presumptious of me to say that I agree with this statement ? > What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this > situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before we > have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to know your > decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion about the play of > the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play continues. (my assumption > is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' means she thought all her trumps to > be good). > > ton > This is a very difficult question, since the actual situation will never arise. However, when I start cashing a sequence of cards that I believe are high (let's say in the hope of winning some tricks at the end that I might as well concede right away, but you never know), I will always start from the top. Only after everyone has failed to follow, may I start playing them from the bottom. Just a personal habit, though. Count me as playing the queen. I would not mind a "burnian" type principle that within a claim, this declarer shall lose one trick. > > I promised to submit the following for judgement: > > > > North > > -- > > -- > > Q 10 9 8 > > -- East > > x > > xx > > J > > x > > I presume that the fact that East has a card more than North is of no importance ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 23:46:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GDkH500295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 23:46:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GDk6t00279 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 23:46:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-199.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.199]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4GDjcc01918 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 15:45:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B024689.A533375F@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:21:13 +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 out of turn References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Mon, 14 May 2001, Herman De Wael wrote: > > [GRB said before:] > > > > > > If claimer says nothing, and there is a choice between a > > > guaranteeing-9-tricks line and a 10-or-8-trick line, don't we *ALL* agree > > > that he gets 9 tricks when the 10-or-8 line is working, and 8 when the > > > 10-or-8 line is failing? I can't imagine a clearer example of "two normal > > > lines," one possibly inferior due to the form of scoring. > > > > > > > This is an interesting point, and merits further discussion. > > > > When both lines are "normal", and one is "inferior", can we > > not agree that, if it is absolutely certain that claimer > > will notice both lines, and that he can easily work out the > > difference between them, that it is "irrational" for him to > > choose the risky line in team play ? > > Yes, we cannot agree on that. :) > > If we allow the "it's irrational to intentionally take the riskier / lower > expectation / whatever line" argument we find ourselves in the position of > awarding our claims on the basis of flawless declarer play! > Gordon is mixing principles. I have a simple case, with 2 possible lines. I state that it is my ruling that this declarer cannot fail to find both lines, nor that he can fail to notice that the one is "safe" while the other one isn't. I state that in those circumstances, it is irrational to choose the risky line. Gordon retorts that this is a wrong principle, and he gives a few examples to the contrary. One of them involves a percentage of 92%. Many of these examples are correct, and I choose not to comment on those that I don't recognise as correct within an instant. They are probably correct as well. >From that, Gordon seems to be saying that the principle that I have applied is incorrect. Far from saying that it is incorrect (I'd call it "insufficiently completely worded" instead), I agree that Gordon has a point. But then Gordon jumps two fences at once. Since my principle is incorrect, he seems to be stating, so must be my ruling. And that is not correct. Think of the principle what you will, but please don't criticize my ruling here. In this case, it is irrational for this declarer to choose the inferior line. If you use the examples below to state that it shall always remain inferior to choose an inferior line, then you are the one with the wrong principle. OK, Gordon ? > I think Alain's post has muddied what I was trying to say even further. I > was NOT using the word "inferior" in two different ways. Let me take > another stab at it. > Principle : choosing to play an "inferior" line when it is clear to claimer that the line is inferior to some other line that he cannot fail to notice, is an irrational action. The line may be inferior, but the action of choosing to follow it is irrational, not inferior. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 16 23:46:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GDkDL00290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 23:46:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GDk3t00277 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 23:46:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-199.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.199]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4GDjZc01873 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 15:45:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B02443C.196BC673@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:11:24 +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] claiming out of turn References: <3.0.6.32.20010515143357.0082f6a0@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, you and I are saying exactly the same thing. Allow me to requote from my post, as you have not done so completely : When both lines are "normal", and one is "inferior", can we not agree that, _if it is absolutely certain that claimer will notice both lines, and that he can easily work out the difference between them_, that it is "irrational" for him to choose the risky line in team play ? I have re-emphasised the important bit "if it is certain that he notices both and if it is easy to work out the difference, then it becomes irrational to choose the inferior line". alain gottcheiner wrote: nothing I can disagree with, therefore. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 00:39:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GEboQ00398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 00:37:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GEbdt00394 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 00:37:44 +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 JAA05776 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 09:37:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010516093501.007cabb0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:35:01 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B85B@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:06 AM 5/16/2001 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: >It certainly is a decision which keeps everybody happy, as does average+ for >both sides, which seems to become a popular ruling nowadays. But in my >opinion it is not a decision that is 'allowed' when applying L68-71. Yes, I >know that AC can do what they want, having 12C3 available. This is a >zero-one decision: is playing something else than the DQ careless or >irrational, or, what I prefer here without looking at the footnote: is >playing something else than the Q normal? The answer is 'yes' or 'no' and >not 'normal in three out of four cases' and 'not normal in one out of four >cases' which you seem to say with your ruling. As with Herman, I hope it is not presumptuous to note that I agree. >What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this >situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before we >have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to know your >decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion about the play of >the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play continues. (my assumption >is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' means she thought all her trumps to >be good). Are you asking me: a) If _I_ were playing the hand out, would I in fact play the Q first? Yes, I always play my suits from the top when I'm running them. b) If 'everyone' played the hand out, would they _all_ play the Q first? I doubt it. I'm sure some of them would play another card first. c) Is it _irrational_ to play anything other than the Q first? Yes, manifestly. The fact that some people will sometimes play something else doesn't change the fact that playing something else is irrational. {For everybody, Eric, even Mrs. Guggenheim. :)} >ton 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 May 17 00:40:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GEduu00413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 00:39:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GEdmt00403 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 00:39:49 +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 f4GEdJk00491 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:39:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010516104043.00b6e220@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, 16 May 2001 10:41:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Apologies to Ton for the double post. >At 04:06 AM 5/16/01, Kooijman wrote: > >>What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this >>situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before we >>have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to know your >>decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion about the play of >>the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play continues. (my >>assumption >>is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' means she thought all her >>trumps to >>be good). > >Anyone who didn't play the Q at the table would presumably have >mis-pulled -- I can't even imagine a notorious hot-dogger doing it >deliberately, as they would have preferred to claim. I would assume >the play of the Q, ruling all of the tricks to the claimer. I would >presume it to be "irrational" to cash out a single suit other than >from the top down. But the background here is that I direct in the >ACBL, where this is an officially promulgated guideline. 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 May 17 00:50:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GEmIA00440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 00:48:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin8.bigpond.com (juicer39.bigpond.com [139.134.6.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4GEmEt00436 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 00:48:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.54]) by mailin8.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GDFO0H00.DJH for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 00:53:05 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-219.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.219]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Intergalactic-MailRouter V2.9c 11/11689683); 17 May 2001 00:47:21 Message-ID: <004b01c0de16$d8356a80$dbe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 00:45:23 +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 Ton Kooijman wrote: Tony Musgrove had written: >> North >> -- >> -- >> Q 10 9 8 >> -- East >> x >> xx >> J >> x >> >> Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer >> states the rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about >> the outstanding J. > >What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this >situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before >we have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to >know your decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion >about the play of the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play >continues. (my assumption is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' >means she thought all her trumps to be good). You want 100 answers? I guess that lurkers (which includes me, in recent times) had better reply. I think it's very close, and that about 95% of players would lead DQ. This is quite not enough IMO to allow declarer to make all the tricks, so I'd award a trick to the defence. Ton, if you'd like me to poll about 50 non-BLML Aussies by email, let me know. 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 Thu May 17 01:20:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GFKY800549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 01:20:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GFKRt00545 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 01:20:28 +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 KAA19045 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:20:12 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010516101800.007d3e10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:18:00 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think this sums up my view--I'll try to shut up now. Snipped from personal correspondence with Eric Landau, with permission. > is Eric. >If the rest of the world agreed with me, SOs would have issued >guidelines by now as to what constitutes an "irrational" >play. Probably by example, including such "irrationalities" as >crashing honors, blocking suits, taking out entries that will be needed >later to cash high cards, or running suits other than from the >top. Right now that can't happen; if "irrational" varies from player >to player, there can be no guidelines. That's because guidelines >support definitions, and I would argue that you can't *define* >"irrational" so that it varies from player to player. Even if you >don't accept that, I suggest that giving SOs the ability to promulgate >guidelines for ruling on claims is by itself a strong argument in favor >of my position. I would argue that all of those principles are perfectly acceptable as a floor. In other words, I am happy with an SO that says "the following plays are irrational _for everybody_...", even if there are some other plays that are merely inferior for Mrs. G but are irrational for Mr. G. >I can think of several other terms we might use in place of >"irrational" ("egregious", "patently ridiculous", "absurd"), but none >of them would be any less subject to interpretation. "Irrational" >captures the meaning we want as well as anything else, provided we let >it mean what the dictionary says it means, not something else >entirely... like "so obviously careless or inferior that this >particular person would be extremely unlikely to do it", which is the >meaning ascribed to it by the interpretation that allows it to vary. But, again, this means that you are doing exactly what I am afraid of--you are dragging claims down to the level of the [almost worst] player. "Irrational", "egregious", "patently ridiculous", "absurd", are all words that tell us that claimer chould be screwed nearly to the maximum possible level, especially when it is made clear that these terms are invariant. You aren't protecting Mrs. G from having an irrational line foisted upon her--you are telling me that I have to play as bad as Mrs. G does [except when she's doing something truly horrid], _even if you are certain as director that I would not play the hand that badly if it were played out_. Now part of the problem is that some people think that this manifestly higher standard will educate people to make better claims. I don't believe that. If I did, I wouldn't be against it _as much_. But, again, we come to the big issue. I read claim law as a determination of 'what would have happened had the hand been played out, giving close calls against the claimer'. That's what 'equity' is to me. Therefore, if a declarer ever has a line forced upon him which is so bad that he would never make it when he is not having a total lapse of concentration, then equity has not been done. In other words: If 'irrational' does not vary by class of player, then the footnote contradicts L70a. You can't do equity for Garozzo by making him play like Mrs. G, even if you delete the 'patently absurd' plays from Mrs. G's repertoire. OTOH, you can't do equity to me if I am playing against Mrs. G, she claims badly, and you employ a standard of play significantly _above_ her level. So, on my view, the only way that the footnote can comply with L70a is to vary the standard for 'normal' to the level of the player. >FFTQFTM. /eric 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 May 17 02:53:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GGqi400746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 02:52:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GGqbt00742 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 02:52:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-103.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.103]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id F2A2A53AE7 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 17:52:07 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 17:48:45 +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) In-Reply-To: <3B00FFB7.825083EB@village.uunet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Herman De Wael (Tue 15 May 2001 11:07) writes: >>Brambledown wrote >> This is IMO quite different from the case under discussion where >> declarer has made an appalling claim and Herman believes he should be >> allowed to correct it simply on the basis that at some stage while >> playing it he would be bound to realise the error of his ways. > >Why do you call this an "appaling claim". It is exactly the >sort of thing that happens quite a lot. You "feel" that >play is over and speak too soon. Nothing appaling about >it. You lose the option that defenders are kind to you and >return a red one after all. You lose the option that clubs >are 2-2, because it would be normal to duck the first >heart. But you should not lose more than that and be deemed >to play irrationally, simply because you believe it is >irrational to claim in this position. Careless, yes, >irrational, certainly not. Sorry Herman, but you have wandered into the wrong claim, I have never commented on this one. The hand we have been discussing and in which I described the claim as appalling is: > >Contract is 3 NT. Opening lead is a small diamond. > > AKxx QJx > > KQJ xxxx > > xx AKx > > Kxxx Axx > > Declarer sees the diamond lead and immediately says "I'll take > > my 9 top tricks in spades, diamonds and clubs and give you the rest". 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 May 17 03:04:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GH4Iq00784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:04:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GH4Ct00780 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:04:12 +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 f4GH4oV09170 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 10:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006d01c0de2a$212d8d40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:54:08 -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 > Ton Kooijman wrote: > Tony Musgrove had written: > >> North > >> -- > >> -- > >> Q 10 9 8 > >> -- East > >> x > >> xx > >> J > >> x > >> > >> Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer > >> states the rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about >> > the outstanding J. > > > >What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this > >situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before > >we have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to > >know your decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion > >about the play of the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play > >continues. (my assumption is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' > >means she thought all her trumps to be good). > > You want 100 answers? I guess that lurkers (which includes me, in > recent times) had better reply. I think it's very close, and that about > 95% of players would lead DQ. This is quite not enough IMO to allow > declarer to make all the tricks, so I'd award a trick to the defence. > In ACBL-land, official policy is that cards are assumed to be played from the top down (ACBLScore Tech Files) 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 May 17 03:05:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GH57Y00802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:05:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GH4vt00793 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:04:59 +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 1504im-0002JY-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:04:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 17:16:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <3.0.6.32.20010516163026.007b5e40@pop.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010516163026.007b5e40@pop.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove writes >I promised to submit the following for judgement: > > North > -- > -- > Q 10 9 8 > -- East > x > xx > J > x > > >Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer states the >rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about the outstanding J. >I state that 3/4 of the time she will lose a trick to the J, and 1/4 of the >time she will play the Q and take all tricks, so I award 3/4 of MPs for 5D >going off 1, and 1/4 of the MPs for 5D making. Both sides are happy. The >only problem is that Australian directors are not yet allowed to rule using >12C3 (I don't think). No, the problem is that this is a claim, not an adjusted score, so L12C3 does not apply. ------- Kooijman, A. writes >It certainly is a decision which keeps everybody happy, as does average+ for >both sides, which seems to become a popular ruling nowadays. But in my >opinion it is not a decision that is 'allowed' when applying L68-71. Yes, I >know that AC can do what they want, having 12C3 available. I do not see that they can do what they want with L12C3: the Law talks of varying an assigned adjusted score. There are no adjusted scores in claims so I believe a weighted score to be illegal in any jurisdiction. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 03:05:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GH5JY00812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:05:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GH57t00801 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:05:08 +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 1504it-0002JX-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:04:33 +0100 Message-ID: <8x0h8$AsZqA7EwRl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 17:10:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed cards References: <3.0.6.32.20010516122303.008dc940@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010516122303.008dc940@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >At 11:03 16/05/01 +0200, Martin Sinot wrote: >>David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] wrote: >>>Martin Sinot writes >>>>David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] wrote: >>>> >>>>> So a player exposes a few cards during the auction. Easy peasy. L24, >>>>>partner must pass once, if he becomes a defender they become MPCs [At >>>>>declarer's option, ok] and L50D1 means they are UI [except for knowledge >>>>>that they must be played, ok]. >>Apart from L16, nothing, as far as I can see. On the other hand, in a >>previous version of the Lawbook I remember a law saying explicitly that >>information from an infraction (such as withdrawn bids, penalty cards) >>is allowed if a penalty has been paid. This law has been removed from >>the current Lawbook (and indeed, this information is now UI, as mentioned >>in the relevant laws). One would expect that a similar statement is >>added to L24, but for some reason this has not been done. I am not >>convinced by the stiff penalty argument; the penalty for MPCs is also >>rather stiff, but information from these cards is still UI. > >AG : there are cases when the pass-once and MPC penalties are not that much >drastic, but the UI is quite essential. That's why the UI restrictions are >sitll there. >Let's look at the following case : > > West East > > Axxxxx KQxxx > xx Kxx > -- AKQx > AQxxx x > >West opens 1S ; North bids 2H ; at the same time, two small hearts fall >from West's hand without 'external sollicitation'. East must pass. West now >reopens with 3C (IMO he is allowed to know that East had a penalty to pay, >could have had to pass a huge hand, and thus is allowed to reopen on >marginal hands). East bids 4NT, and receives an answer of 5NT, 2 Aces and a >void. >Now there is UI to East that the void is in Diamonds, not Hearts. Since a >Heart void would nearly guarantee a 7S contract, my view is that bidding >only 6S could be called 'use of improper information'. Of course, if East >had at his disposal the 6C bid to ask which is the short suit, or 6D to say >'if your void is Hearts, bid 7', nobody could ask him to commit felo de se >by bidding 7 directly, but absent these gadgets, would not 7S be an >alternative to 6S ? I am sorry, Alain, I know there are hands where it makes a difference whether the cards are UI or AI, and you have provided an excellent example, but such hands do not tell us what the Law is. I want to know whether the Law says they are AI or UI, and so far I have not seen anything convincing. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 03:05:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GH5Nt00817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:05:23 +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-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 f4GH50t00796 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:05:03 +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 1504it-0002JW-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:04:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 17:08:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed cards References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot writes >David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] wrote: >>Martin Sinot writes >>>David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] wrote: >>> >>>> So a player exposes a few cards during the auction. Easy peasy. L24, >>>>partner must pass once, if he becomes a defender they become MPCs [At >>>>declarer's option, ok] and L50D1 means they are UI [except for knowledge >>>>that they must be played, ok]. >>>> >>>> BUT! >>>> >>>> Suppose the auction continues because the opponents bid or double, >>>>offender's partner passes once, and now gets another turn to call, the >>>>auction is not over, and ..... >>>> >>>> Are the exposed cards UI to partner? >>> >>>L16: Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information >>>from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a >>>call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. >>> >>>Showing cards to partner is clearly not one of the by this law allowed >>>methods of transferring information to partner. So I would say yes, >>>the exposed cards are UI to partner (and AI to opponents, by the same >L16). >> Showing cards to partner is clearly not allowed. But in this case a >>player has made a mistake that has quite a stiff penalty. So it is >>hardly something to try to gain advantage [and L72B1 would come to our >>rescue if so]. But damage limitation is reasonable when legal. >> >> I am not convinced that the exposed cards are UI. While we tend to >>think of such things as UI automatically, generally there is something >>that tells us, for example L16C or L50D1. But what tells us this is UI? >Apart from L16, nothing, as far as I can see. On the other hand, in a >previous version of the Lawbook I remember a law saying explicitly that >information from an infraction (such as withdrawn bids, penalty cards) >is allowed if a penalty has been paid. This law has been removed from >the current Lawbook (and indeed, this information is now UI, as mentioned >in the relevant laws). One would expect that a similar statement is >added to L24, but for some reason this has not been done. I am not >convinced by the stiff penalty argument; the penalty for MPCs is also >rather stiff, but information from these cards is still UI. Sure, but it says so. And I think your memory is at fault over the previous Law book: I think you are referring to L16C which used to allow AI after withdrawn calls, and is now UI - but that does not affect this, which is not a withdrawn call. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 03:34:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GHYdo02926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:34:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4GHYWt02889 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:34:32 +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 NAA00723 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 13:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA19073 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 May 2001 13:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:34:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200105161734.NAA19073@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > I consider that declarer, thinking that all the cards are high, would > merely be careless to play the wrong suit first, having a choice, but > that given no choice of suit, would be irrational to play other than the > top card first. As others have said, the above is the official ACBL approach. FWIW, I agree with it. Even Mrs. Guggenheim -- especially Mrs. Guggenheim! -- plays her suits from the top down. This is such a common situation that I think official guidelines would be a good idea even outside the ACBL. Perhaps it could be part of the "approved jurisprudence" under the CoP. Another common example: Spades trumps North: S-Q2 H-A East: S-7 H-3 D-J Declarer South, West and South hands irrelevant; declarer says "Dummy is good," having forgotten the trump. It is merely careless to cash H-A, but luckily East cannot ruff: three tricks to declarer. But if East were void of hearts and South unable to overruff or the East hand moved to West, the defense would get one trick. As we know, in bridge not all mistakes -- not even all foolish mistakes such as forgetting a trump -- are punished. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 03:41:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GHers05103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:40:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4GHejt05049 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:40:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from fermat.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.1.37]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f4GHeCv16527 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:40:13 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4GHeCw27958 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:40:12 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 16 May 2001 17:40:12 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 SAA07792 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:40:12 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA09418 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 May 2001 18:40:11 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 18:40:11 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200105161740.SAA09418@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Kooijman, A. writes > >It certainly is a decision which keeps everybody happy, as does average+ for > >both sides, which seems to become a popular ruling nowadays. But in my > >opinion it is not a decision that is 'allowed' when applying L68-71. Yes, I > >know that AC can do what they want, having 12C3 available. > > I do not see that they can do what they want with L12C3: the Law talks > of varying an assigned adjusted score. There are no adjusted scores in > claims so I believe a weighted score to be illegal in any jurisdiction. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK [ No names - no pack drill. Whatever that means. ] At a national event there was a claim in 7NT of the 13 top tricks -- unfortunately declarer's statement could be understood to mean he/she would be locked in hand/dummy. The ruling was split 7NT-1 to declarer, 7NT= to defence (I guess neither side had won the sympathy of the TD); and both sides appealed! While deliberating, the AC asked a TD if they could give a weighted score (e.g. 60% of 7NT= / 40% of 7NT-1) to both sides. He said that he did not think it was legal (no route from L70 to L12C2/3) but added that as an AC they could do what they liked, the worst that could happen was a letter from the national body's law committee. Sure enough, the decision was a weighted score and, when the national body's law committee reviewed the decision, the AC members got a stroppy letter. So that particular jurisdiction believed a weighted score to be illegal. 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 May 17 04:26:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GIQKp20984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 04:26:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GIQDt20946 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 04:26:14 +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 HDCG78GG; Wed, 16 May 2001 13:25:46 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B85B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:35:40 -0500 To: "Kooijman, A." , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A. Kooijman wrote, (snip) >What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this >situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before we >have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to know your >decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion about the play of >the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play continues. (my assumption >is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' means she thought all her trumps to >be good). > >ton I'd play the queen (to make everyone show out) before I claimed, but I'm very forgetful about cards played. REH > > >> I promised to submit the following for judgement: >> >> North >> -- >> -- >> Q 10 9 8 >> -- East >> x >> xx >> J >> x >> >> >> Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer >> states the >> rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about the >> outstanding J. >> I state that 3/4 of the time she will lose a trick to the J, >> and 1/4 of the >> time she will play the Q and take all tricks, so I award 3/4 >> of MPs for 5D >> going off 1, and 1/4 of the MPs for 5D making. Both sides >> are happy. The >> only problem is that Australian directors are not yet allowed >> to rule using >> 12C3 (I don't think). >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tony (Sydney) >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ 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 May 17 04:41:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GIf8i25220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 04:41:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4GIf2t25216 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 04:41:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4GIccK10282 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 14:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:34:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Brambledown wrote: >The hand we have been discussing and in which I described the claim as >appalling is: > > > >Contract is 3 NT. Opening lead is a small diamond. > > > AKxx QJx > > > KQJ xxxx > > > xx AKx > > > Kxxx Axx > > > Declarer sees the diamond lead and immediately says "I'll take > > > my 9 top tricks in spades, diamonds and clubs and give you the rest". Of late, I've had trouble following things on blml, because the discussion gets convoluted, and I lose interest. :-) But this, as a simple ruling problem, seems straightforward. The claim is appalling, I think, because declarer has only 8 top tricks, not nine. So you look at all four hands, you see what happens when he plays off his eight top tricks, and then you have to decide whether he exits with a diamond, a heart, or a club, and what happens next. The defense should get as many of the last five tricks as seems likely they would get, and if that's all five, declarer is down one, otherwise, he makes his contract (even, possibly, with an overtrick). At the risk of the discussion getting convoluted, I'll ask "what's the big deal"? :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOwLJpb2UW3au93vOEQLunQCg+XUYwFRMa6CTzPS+00ZGGPPl9CwAnRAT 4czhtig2DPgDI5ZDkUAnZ8mY =l4rF -----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 May 17 05:14:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GJDg525287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 05:13:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GJDat25283 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 05:13:36 +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 f4GJD5J47892 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 15:13:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010516150342.00b75670@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, 16 May 2001 15:15:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant and I have been refining our arguments in private correspondence, which has now leaked back onto the list. In response to his May 16 post extracted from this correspondence, I am posting the reply I sent to him previously. We've eliminated a bunch of (what we consider to be) red herrings, and have gotten down to the nub: Should the laws be written (hypothetically; we're both prepared to leave the interpretation of the laws as currently written to the WBF) so that flawed claims are adjudicated the same way for everyone, or should the outcome of the adjudication depend on the class of player involved? (Grant's comments are quoted with permission.) >Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:59:40 -0400 >To: Grant Sterling >From: Eric Landau >Subject: Re: Personal, RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn > >This is turning into a rather thorough summary of the real issue in >the debate over "class of player involved". I expect we'll continue >to disagree on it, but I hope that I have been able to convince you, >as you have convinced me, that the position opposite our own does have >merit. > >At 11:13 AM 5/16/01, you wrote: > >> I agree with the premise but not the conclusion. I do not think >>we should saddle Mrs. G. with 'irrational for everybody' plays even if >>she makes them twice a session. I don't think it follows that we >>must or >>should adjudicate Garozzo's claims as if he played like Mrs. G the rest >>of the time. > >But if we don't saddle Mrs. G. with plays she is making twice a >session, then we wouldn't be adjudicating Garozzo as though he played >like Mrs. G. We would be adjudicating Garozzo the same way we >adjudicate Mrs. G., a very different kettle of fish, and what our >players seem to want and expect -- rulings that don't give breaks to >top players that aren't there for everyone. > >> I would argue that all of those principles are perfectly >>acceptable as a floor. In other words, I am happy with an SO that >>says "the following plays are irrational _for everybody_...", even >>if there are some other plays that are merely inferior for Mrs. G >>but are irrational for Mr. G. > >I agree with the above as stated, of course; I just don't think there >are such plays. If there were, it would mean that Garozzo's >undisputed superiority over Mrs. G. at the bridge table creates a >presumption that he is somehow a more rational person than Mrs. G., >which is what troubles the ordinary players. > >> But, again, this means that you are doing exactly what I am >>afraid of--you are dragging claims down to the level of the [almost >>worst] player. "Irrational", "egregious", "patently ridiculous", >>"absurd", are all words that tell us that claimer chould be screwed >>nearly to the maximum possible level, especially when it is made clear >>that these terms are invariant. > >But I'm not. Those who do are the ones who are now arguing that >claimer should lose a trick to the outstanding trump in Chas's >four-card position. I think it would be not at all difficult to come >up with guidelines that are reasonable and uniform without being Draconian. > >>You aren't protecting Mrs. G >>from having an irrational line foisted upon her--you are telling me >>that I have to play as bad as Mrs. G does [except when she's doing >>something truly horrid], _even if you are certain as director that I >>would not play the hand that badly if it were played out_. > >How can I be certain what would happen if you played the hand >out? Anyone, even Garozzo, *might* make an irrational play on any >given hand, might pull a wrong card, might even accidentally drop his >cards face up on the table. He might even be more likely to do the >second or third of those than the average duffer. So we need to >exclude all of these from the adjudication. Imagine a player with >severe palsy who can be counted on to have at least one accidentally >exposed penalty card on almost every deal. > >I chastised David Stevenson for suggesting that we adjudicate claims >by determining "what would have happened had the hand been played >out", and I stand by that. The law doesn't tell us to determine that, >it tells us to determine only (a) what are all of the possible >"normal" lines, including the careless or inferior but not the >irrational ones, and (b) which of these leads to the least favorable >result for the claimer. So even if I were certain what would happen >had you played the hand out, there's nothing in the law to make it >relevant. > >> Now part of the problem is that some people think that this >>manifestly higher standard will educate people to make better claims. >>I don't believe that. If I did, I wouldn't be against it _as much_. > >I agree here. In real life, inexperienced players generally refuse to >claim, and experienced players have 99% of their claims accepted by >their opponents without a TD call, even though 90% of them are >accompanied by technically incomplete statements. I don't really >think that whatever we do to the standard for adjudicating claims >(short of adopting the David Burn approach) would change the attitudes >or practices of anyone except those who have actually been ruled >against and believe (and tell all of their friends) that the ruling >was prima facie unfair, as the TD/AC admitted that he would not have >made the same ruling for a better player. The typical player who >hears *that* just once will never claim again. > >> I never read the footnote that way. I have always read it as >>saying "you look at this player and ask what plays are normal for >>him to make, including the ones that are below his best standards >>[careless or inferior] but not the ones that he would reject when >>he is paying any attention at all [irrational]." >> But, again, we come to the big issue. I read claim law as a >>determination of 'what would have happened had the hand been played >>out, giving close calls against the claimer'. That's what 'equity' >>is to me. Therefore, if a declarer ever has a line forced upon him >>which is so bad that he would never make it when he is not having a >>total lapse of concentration, then equity has not been done. >> >> In other words: If 'irrational' does not vary by class of >> player, >>then the footnote contradicts L70a. You can't do equity for Garozzo >>by making him play like Mrs. G, even if you delete the 'patently absurd' >>plays from Mrs. G's repertoire. OTOH, you can't do equity to me if I >>am playing against Mrs. G, she claims badly, and you employ a standard >>of play significantly _above_ her level. > >I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't jive with the ordinary >person's notion of what equity is. Dictionary says, "The state, >ideal, or quality of being just, impartial, and fair." Most people's >idea of "just, impartial and fair" is that everyone gets treated the >same way, that a "just, impartial and fair" adjudicator needs only the >facts to come to decision, not the names of the litigants. Now you >and I understand that this needn't necessarily be the case in this >particular context, but our rules should be written to make the game >as conformant as we can to what is held to be fair by the bulk of our >players, not by the majority of BLML laws mavens. > >I have snipped the rest. I started to reply to your remaining >comments, but realized that I was just repeating myself. /eric > >(FFTQ) 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 May 17 08:00:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GM03u25585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 08:00:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4GLxvt25577 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 07:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010516215938.THXW3476202.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]>; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:59:38 +1200 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: Grant Sterling CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 22:00:59 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010516215938.THXW3476202.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: Grant Sterling > Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:35:01 -0500 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing > Are you asking me: > a) If _I_ were playing the hand out, would I in fact play the Q > first? Yes, I always play my suits from the top when I'm running them. > b) If 'everyone' played the hand out, would they _all_ play the > Q first? I doubt it. I'm sure some of them would play another card > first. > c) Is it _irrational_ to play anything other than the Q first? > Yes, manifestly. I don't see this at all. What do you play from AKQJ it does not matter. Similarly it does not matter which card you play from Q1098 when you believe there are no there are no trumps left. I think the onus is on the claimer to state that the trumps are being played from the top down in case there is an outstanding trump. >The fact that some people will sometimes play > something else doesn't change the fact that playing something else is > irrational. {For everybody, Eric, even Mrs. Guggenheim. :)} > > >ton > > 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/ > Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 09:31:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GNUmt25805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:30:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4GNUht25801 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:30:44 +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 JAA29865 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:35:32 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:21:52 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 09:28:39 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 17/05/2001 09:26:18 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>From: "Anne Jones" >>I consider that declarer, thinking that all the cards are high, would >>merely be careless to play the wrong suit first, having a choice, but >>that given no choice of suit, would be irrational to play other than the >>top card first. >From: "Steve Willner" > >As others have said, the above is the official ACBL approach. FWIW, I >agree with it. Even Mrs. Guggenheim -- especially Mrs. Guggenheim! -- >plays her suits from the top down. > >This is such a common situation that I think official guidelines would >be a good idea even outside the ACBL. Perhaps it could be part of the >"approved jurisprudence" under the CoP. [snip] The ACBL rules it is irrational to play a suit bottom up. However, occasionally I have played a suit, where pips such as 865 remain after several rounds have been played earlier. I have routinely led a low pip, expecting it did not matter, only to lose an unnecessary trick to the 7. Does this make me a worse player than Mrs Guggenheim? :-) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 09:34:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GNY3w25822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:34:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4GNXwt25818 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:33:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.53.105] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 150AnI-0007gy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 May 2001 00:33:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001001c0de60$78f7b420$69357ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 00:31:48 +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 > A. Kooijman wrote, (snip) > > > >What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this > >situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before we > >have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to know your > >decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion about the play of > >the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play continues. (my assumption > >is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' means she thought all her trumps to > >be good). Well, we have a policy in England about which nobody knows, since it exists only in the minutes of a meeting of our Laws Committee and derives from a suggestion that I made a few months ago. It is this: a declarer who claims on the basis that all the remaining cards in one hand are winners will have no reason to play any suit before any other suit (even if one suit is trumps); but will not rationally play any suit other than from the top down. So, a declarer with SAKQ and HKQJ (spades trumps) may be deemed "rationally" to play off all the spades before any hearts; if a defender has HA and three minor suit winners, he gets the last three tricks. If there are no trumps, then a defender with HA and five minor suit winners gets the rest. But a declarer who has DQ1098 and no other cards will not "rationally" play diamonds in any order other than queen first. It may not be perfect - there are those who would say that no rational person would play off three top trumps, on which both opponents continue to show out, before cashing a side suit. However, the formulation of a rule that treated SAKQ HKQJ differently from SAKQ HKQ2 (where declarer might very well play off the spades in the hope that, if he has miscounted hearts, a defender will throw one from three cards) would lead to unacceptable and incomprehensible complexities. But the policy has this in its favour: it's mechanical, it's simple, it works, and it means that no director or appeals committee ever has to answer the question posed by Ton Kooijman's poll. The notion that declarer would play Q1098 by leading the queen 25% of the time is an interesting one, and I can see whence it arose since thinking in this area is hugely muddled, but I don't think it's a valid way to rule. 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 May 17 09:48:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4GNm9B27577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:48:09 +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-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 f4GNm1t27532 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:48:02 +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 150B0u-0006VQ-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 May 2001 00:47:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 00:46:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <004b01c0de16$d8356a80$dbe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <004b01c0de16$d8356a80$dbe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <004b01c0de16$d8356a80$dbe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes >Ton Kooijman wrote: >Tony Musgrove had written: >>> North >>> -- >>> -- >>> Q 10 9 8 >>> -- East >>> x >>> xx >>> J >>> x >>> >>> Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer >>> states the rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about >> >the outstanding J. >> 1 trick to East, no real problem with this one. cheers john >>What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this >>situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before >>we have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to >>know your decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion >>about the play of the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play >>continues. (my assumption is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' >>means she thought all her trumps to be good). > >You want 100 answers? I guess that lurkers (which includes me, in >recent times) had better reply. I think it's very close, and that about >95% of players would lead DQ. This is quite not enough IMO to allow >declarer to make all the tricks, so I'd award a trick to the defence. > >Ton, if you'd like me to poll about 50 non-BLML Aussies by email, >let me know. > >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/ -- 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 May 17 10:17:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4H0H2G07678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 10:17:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4H0Gtt07643 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 10:16:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.34.236] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 150BSs-0006RR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 May 2001 01:16:27 +0100 Message-ID: <004201c0de66$79889ac0$69357ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20010515143357.0082f6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B02443C.196BC673@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 01:14:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > When both lines are "normal", and one is "inferior", can we > not agree that, _if it is absolutely certain that claimer > will notice both lines, and that he can easily work out the > difference between them_, that it is "irrational" for him to > choose the risky line in team play ? > > I have re-emphasised the important bit "if it is certain > that he notices both and if it is easy to work out the > difference, then it becomes irrational to choose the > inferior line". Well, this principle might apply in the Belgian Claim case. But it would be pretty useless as a principle to guide directors and ACs in all cases. Suppose I play a no trump slam in which I require four tricks from this spade suit (all other suits being doubly stopped): A432 Q10987 but owing to circumstances beyond my control (viz: the bar being open) I think that I have the king of spades instead of the queen. I table my cards and announce that I will play spades safely for one loser, and claim my twelve tricks. (Note: this kind of claim happens all the time in the £100 game at TGR's, where time is money.) Now, it is quite easy for me to notice that I could play: ace and another spade; or low to the queen and then cash the ace; or low to the queen and then run the ten; or low to the ten and then cash the ace; or low to the ten and then run the queen; or run the queen and then cash the ace; or run the queen and then run the ten; or run the ten and then cash the ace; or run the ten and then run the queen. It is also quite easy for me to work out the different chances of success for each of these lines. Would it be "irrational" for me to follow one of the inferior ones? (Note for those not familiar with percentage plays: the correct technical line is ace and another, but if RHO is not of the very highest calibre, the best practical shot is low to the ten and then run the queen.) 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 May 17 10:22:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4H0MlR09656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 10:22:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4H0Met09614 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 10:22:41 +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 QAA30723 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 16:22:11 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:21:25 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At last night's club game we had our first ruling in some months which led to ruffled feathers all around. And, amazingly, it wasn't a bad claim, nor was it a dispute over whether UI had been misused. None vulnerable, South dealer: West North East South 2H Dbl Pass 2S 4H * Pass Pass ? 2H was natural and weak. Not unexpectedly given the bidding, declarer failed by some four tricks. North attempted to write -200 on the traveller, which West hotly disputed: no, 800! At (*), West neither pulled out a Pass nor a Double from her bidding-box. She tapped her fingers on the table, on or near the Double card she placed on the table during the first round of bidding. This was followed by some sort of general agreement no-one else was going to bid -- pass cards, taps, picking up of bidding cards, whatever. Now, 99% of the time when a player thumps the table with her fingers, she has already passed several times and is merely indicating "yeah, yeah, wake me when the auction is over, I'm not going to be sticking MY nose into it again." Everyone agreed on the facts of what West physically did. Three people at the table thought her physical actions indicated a pass. But there is no denying West *wanted* to double in her own mind, though this sentiment wasn't conveyed to the other players. So - what do you tell them to score it up as?? The law is remarkably un-helpful. What West did wasn't the proper form of a double, nor was it the proper form of a pass. At the table, I reminded the players that tapping the table was a bad habit and the proper way to make ALL calls was to pull a new card from the bidding box at each turn, and ruled that because a) taps most commonly are used to indicated passes and b) noone bothered to dispute what the contract was until the end of the hand, that 4H-4=-200 was the result. West, obviously, didn't like this ruling very much. I can see how another director in the same situation would have ruled the contract was 4Hx, -800. I can see how a third director would rule the contract was 4Hx, but that South was harmed by West's improper procedure, and adjust to -300 or -500, whatever best declarer play having been forewarned there were 4 trumps offside would lead to. Would anyone care to offer an opinion as to which ruling is "right"? What would you do if West had appealed my ruling and it came before your committee. (In particular, is this a matter of law or a matter of judgment?) In practice there was no appeal because -200, -300, -500 and -800 are all the same cold bottom after the rather suicidal 4H call. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 11:35:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4H1ZA815850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 11:35:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r11.mx.aol.com (imo-r11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4H1Z4t15846 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 11:35:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id 3.54.149e779a (2612); Wed, 16 May 2001 21:34:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <54.149e779a.2834849f@aol.com> Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 21:34:23 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing To: dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_54.149e779a.2834849f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_54.149e779a.2834849f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Seems to me that the policy in England, much like the ACBL policy in this situation is what is needed. What is not needed is a poll of everyone to arrive at the "correct" conclusion. Pretty soon we'll be running polls to see what the Law says, (have I already missed some of those?)instead of using the established structure for NBO, WBFLC, etc., to tell us what the Law intends. I don't know where the title "More Faulty Directing" originated, but it seems to me that it probably should have been entitled "More Faulty Thinking." I've just returned from the South American Championships where at least half of the hands were claimed at some point. There was little or no discussion; everyone acted as though their opponents were sane; when asked to explain there was no reluctance to state what you were displaying; and I very much doubt that anyone got away with anything, or was disadvantaged by the claims. It was really like playing bridge instead of trying to get something by playing the Laws. And, if anyone feels themselves superior to the level of bridge at that tournament, there were world champions in play, and a 14 year old, Augustine Madala of Argentina, who makes most of us feel and look like beginners. Cheers, Kojak (and I know we need to fix the language of the Laws, but NOT their substance for the most part). FYI -- no appeals with 5 situations which were "bridge judgement" by using the pre-consultation method of the Code of Practice. --part1_54.149e779a.2834849f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Seems to me that the policy in England, much like the ACBL policy in this
situation is what is needed.  What is not needed is a poll of everyone to
arrive at the "correct" conclusion.  Pretty soon we'll be running polls to
see what the Law says, (have I already missed some of those?)instead of using
the established structure for NBO, WBFLC, etc., to tell us what the Law
intends. I don't know where the title "More Faulty Directing" originated, but
it seems to me that it probably should have been entitled "More Faulty
Thinking."
I've just returned from the South American Championships where at least  half
of the hands were claimed at some point.  There was little or no discussion;
everyone acted as though their opponents were sane; when asked to explain
there was no reluctance to state what you were displaying; and I very much
doubt that anyone got away with anything, or was disadvantaged by the claims.
 It was really like playing bridge instead of trying to get something by
playing the Laws.
And, if anyone feels themselves superior to the level of bridge at that
tournament, there were world champions in play, and a 14 year old, Augustine
Madala of Argentina, who makes most of us feel and look like beginners.
Cheers,    Kojak (and I know we need to fix the language of the Laws, but NOT
their substance for the most part).
FYI -- no appeals with 5 situations which were "bridge judgement" by using
the pre-consultation method of the Code of Practice.   --part1_54.149e779a.2834849f_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 May 17 12:42:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4H2fdU21284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 12:41:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4H2fYt21280 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 12:41:34 +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 MAA27612 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 12:46:21 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 17 May 2001 12:32:42 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:39:29 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 17/05/2001 12:37:07 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: [snip] >At (*), West neither pulled out a Pass nor a Double from her >bidding-box. She tapped her fingers on the table, on or near the Double >card she placed on the table during the first round of bidding. This was >followed by some sort of general agreement no-one else was going to bid -- >pass cards, taps, picking up of bidding cards, whatever. > >Now, 99% of the time when a player thumps the table with her fingers, she >has already passed several times and is merely indicating "yeah, yeah, >wake me when the auction is over, I'm not going to be sticking MY nose >into it again." > >Everyone agreed on the facts of what West physically did. Three people at >the table thought her physical actions indicated a pass. But there is no >denying West *wanted* to double in her own mind, though this sentiment >wasn't conveyed to the other players. > >So - what do you tell them to score it up as?? The law is remarkably >un-helpful. What West did wasn't the proper form of a double, nor was it >the proper form of a pass. > >At the table, I reminded the players that tapping the table was a bad >habit and the proper way to make ALL calls was to pull a new card from the >bidding box at each turn, and ruled that because a) taps most commonly are >used to indicated passes and b) noone bothered to dispute what the >contract was until the end of the hand, that 4H-4=-200 was the >result. West, obviously, didn't like this ruling very much. [snip] I agree with Gordon's ruling, but not with his reasoning. L19A2 specifies the only correct way to Double. There is no corresponding Law specifying the only correct way to Pass. Therefore, West's ambiguous call must be defined as *not* a Double. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 13:02:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4H32Sc24316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 13:02:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4H32Kt24272 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 13:02:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-39-127.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.39.127]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4H31hH18062; Thu, 17 May 2001 04:01:43 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <004301c0de7d$b7110c80$7f277bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , References: <54.149e779a.2834849f@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 03:39:39 +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: ; Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing > Seems to me that the policy in England, > much like the ACBL policy in this > situation is what is needed. What is not > needed is a poll of everyone to > arrive at the "correct" conclusion. Pretty > soon we'll be running polls to see what the > Law says, (have I already missed some of > those?)instead of using the established > structure for NBO, WBFLC, etc., to tell > us what the Law intends. I don't know > where the title "More Faulty Directing" > originated, but it seems to me that it > probably should have been entitled "More Faulty Thinking." +=+ Although the initial jurisprudence to be attached to the Code of Practice has been accepted by the foursome appointed to act for the former CoP Group and the Appeals Committee, I am sure there is time and room to add this if it gets agreed in Bali. Perhaps I can put it on the WBFLC agenda for its endorsement. ~ 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 May 17 13:23:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4H3NC001559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 13:23:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4H3N5t01516 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 13:23:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.130.132] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 150EN1-0000rX-00; Thu, 17 May 2001 04:22:35 +0100 Message-ID: <011e01c0de80$7a821720$69357ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: , References: <54.149e779a.2834849f@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 04:20:57 +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 Kojak wrote: >Seems to me that the policy in England, much like the ACBL policy in this situation is what is needed. One small step for a mechanic. If only, as has been said before, one could consult some table that would provide a definitive answer as to whether such-and-such a play is "normal" or "irrational", there would not be any problem. However, such a table would be difficult to construct in any case, and impossible if the additional variable "for the class of player involved" is introduced. So it happens that each individual case is decided "on its merits" by people who have not got very much clue about anything. I have often thought that a footnote might be written to Law 93, to the effect that a ruling should be allowed to stand if it was inferior or careless, but not irrational, for the class of Appeals Committee involved. By extension, though, one could imagine that such a decision might in turn depend on whether the National Authority had acted in a "normal" (that is to say, careless or inferior) or "irrational" fashion. Since most National Authorities consist of a preponderance of lunatics, one can understand why this route has not to date been followed. >What is not needed is a poll of everyone to arrive at the "correct" conclusion. Oh, I don't know. At least the responses to such a poll might provide a basis for constructing the beginnings of a table on the above lines. >Pretty soon we'll be running polls to see what the Law says, (have I already missed some of those?) instead of using the established structure for NBO, WBFLC, etc., to tell us what the Law intends. Quite so. The difficulty that I have always had is that one ought not to need a "structure" to tell us what the Law intends. If the Law itself cannot tell us what it intends, then it is a pretty shocking Law. Now, this is not anyone's fault, because it is very difficult indeed for anyone to make a Law such that everyone else could understand what it meant. If they could, then 90% of accountants, attorneys, duns and receivers' men would be out of business, to the inestimable detriment of mankind. However, we are not in the business of making Laws that might ruin people's lives; we are making the rules of a game. Now, there is no intrinsic reason why the rules of a game should be "fair"; there is no intrinsic reason why (for example) a player who claims ten tricks when there is some lie of cards that might lead to his making only nine tricks should not be deemed by the rules to make no more tricks at all. Some of the subscribers to this list may have played Scrabble, a game in which you have to put valid words on the board at your turn. If you put down an invalid word, you lose your turn, you are penalised some points, and (for practical purposes) you lose the game unless you were so far ahead that you could not but win. Now, if Scrabble were governed as bridge is governed, when you put down an illegal word, you would be allowed to take it back and have another go, just as a man who claims tricks he does not have is (in effect) deemed to make the tricks he would have made had he been the wonderful player we all know he is, instead of some clod who cannot tell whether or not he has got an entry to his hand. Scrabble players do not see anything wrong with the notion that if you claim something to be a word when it is not, you lose big time. Bridge players, on the other hand, seem to see a great deal wrong with the notion that if you claim something to be a trick when it is not, you lose anything at all. >I don't know where the title "More Faulty Directing" originated, but it seems to me that it probably should have been entitled "More Faulty Thinking." No, no. Just about every thread that has ever been started on this list could have that title. How would we know where we were? >I've just returned from the South American Championships where at least half of the hands were claimed at some point. There was little or no discussion; everyone acted as though their opponents were sane; when asked to explain there was no reluctance to state what you were displaying; and I very much doubt that anyone got away with anything, or was disadvantaged by the claims. It was really like playing bridge instead of trying to get something by playing the Laws. Bill, bridge *is* the Laws. To quote Grattan, many years ago: "it is never unethical to wish to play a game according to its Laws". If there is a difference between playing bridge and playing the Laws, that is the fault of the Laws, not the fault of the players. In a national championship, just as in an international championship, players simply ignore those Laws or regulations that they know to be stupid, and get on with the game. But they do this in part because they know that if they violate the Laws, they will not suffer - Herman will be on hand to tell them that of course they would have noticed in time that they didn't have the tricks they thought they had, or you will be on hand to tell them that... >I know we need to fix the language of the Laws, but NOT their substance for the most part The language is the substance. There is no other; the notion that there is something called "bridge" which exists independently of the Laws of bridge is mere fancy. I don't really mind very much whether we play the game your way or my way - to tell you the truth, at the table I play it your way, but when I'm asked to rule on stuff, I rule it my way. But what I don't want is for there to be a dichotomy between the game of bridge and the Laws of bridge; unfortunately, the way things are going, the gap is widening and not contracting. 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 May 17 14:09:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4H48cJ04800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 14:08:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4H48Wt04793 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 14:08:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qta96.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.169.38]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA15997; Thu, 17 May 2001 00:07:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <025601c0de87$2abf3860$edaaaec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Gordon Bower" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 23:09:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes > > At last night's club game we had our first ruling in some months which led > to ruffled feathers all around. And, amazingly, it wasn't a bad claim, nor > was it a dispute over whether UI had been misused. > > None vulnerable, South dealer: > > West North East South > 2H > Dbl Pass 2S 4H > * Pass Pass ? > > 2H was natural and weak. > > Not unexpectedly given the bidding, declarer failed by some four tricks. > North attempted to write -200 on the traveller, which West hotly > disputed: no, 800! > > At (*), West neither pulled out a Pass nor a Double from her > bidding-box. She tapped her fingers on the table, on or near the Double > card she placed on the table during the first round of bidding. This was > followed by some sort of general agreement no-one else was going to bid -- > pass cards, taps, picking up of bidding cards, whatever. > > Now, 99% of the time when a player thumps the table with her fingers, she > has already passed several times and is merely indicating "yeah, yeah, > wake me when the auction is over, I'm not going to be sticking MY nose > into it again." > > Everyone agreed on the facts of what West physically did. Three people at > the table thought her physical actions indicated a pass. But there is no > denying West *wanted* to double in her own mind, though this sentiment > wasn't conveyed to the other players. > > So - what do you tell them to score it up as?? The law is remarkably > un-helpful. What West did wasn't the proper form of a double, nor was it > the proper form of a pass. > > At the table, I reminded the players that tapping the table was a bad > habit and the proper way to make ALL calls was to pull a new card from the > bidding box at each turn, and ruled that because a) taps most commonly are > used to indicated passes and b) noone bothered to dispute what the > contract was until the end of the hand, that 4H-4=-200 was the > result. West, obviously, didn't like this ruling very much. > > I can see how another director in the same situation would have ruled the > contract was 4Hx, -800. I can see how a third director would rule the > contract was 4Hx, but that South was harmed by West's improper procedure, > and adjust to -300 or -500, whatever best declarer play having been > forewarned there were 4 trumps offside would lead to. > > Would anyone care to offer an opinion as to which ruling is "right"? > > What would you do if West had appealed my ruling and it came before your > committee. (In particular, is this a matter of law or a matter of > judgment?) > > In practice there was no appeal because -200, -300, -500 and -800 are all > the same cold bottom after the rather suicidal 4H call. > > GRB > A tap double? No, West's complaints seem completely without merit. West is not following procedure, and can be penalized for that. Whatever helps to teach West to stop tapping in direct seat. 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 Thu May 17 17:29:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4H7RaJ06397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:27:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4H7RSt06393 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:27:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA22507; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:27:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu May 17 09:26:23 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 <01K3NYYI5LW8006OPU@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:26:16 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:25:19 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 09:26:15 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing To: "'David Burn'" , Schoderb@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B85D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David: > I have often thought that a footnote might be written to Law > 93, to the > effect that a ruling should be allowed to stand if it was inferior or > careless, but not irrational, for the class of Appeals Committee > involved. By extension, though, one could imagine that such a decision > might in turn depend on whether the National Authority had acted in a > "normal" (that is to say, careless or inferior) or > "irrational" fashion. > Since most National Authorities consist of a preponderance of > lunatics, > one can understand why this route has not to date been followed. > nice suggestion Kojak: > >What is not needed is a poll of everyone to > arrive at the "correct" conclusion. > ton: Ha, our oldie, grumbling bear is back. Not own decisions anymore but consulting people before. Good. But still collecting facts before trying to get to a conclusion I hope? It should be possible to collect opinions to get an impression of the state of the art, isn't it? After trillions of contributions to this claiming subject we might have arrived somewhere. So it was an evaluation poll, is that still allowed sir? David: > Oh, I don't know. At least the responses to such a poll might > provide a > basis for constructing the beginnings of a table on the above lines. > > >Pretty soon we'll be running polls to > see what the Law says, (have I already missed some of those?) > instead of > using > the established structure for NBO, WBFLC, etc., to tell us > what the Law > intends. ton: As long as you are there I am not afraid > > Quite so. The difficulty that I have always had is that one > ought not to > need a "structure" to tell us what the Law intends. If the Law itself > cannot tell us what it intends, then it is a pretty shocking Law. Now, > this is not anyone's fault, because it is very difficult indeed for > anyone to make a Law such that everyone else could understand what it > meant. If they could, then 90% of accountants, attorneys, duns and > receivers' men would be out of business, to the inestimable > detriment of > mankind. > > However, we are not in the business of making Laws that might ruin > people's lives; we are making the rules of a game. Now, there is no > intrinsic reason why the rules of a game should be "fair"; there is no > intrinsic reason why (for example) a player who claims ten tricks when > there is some lie of cards that might lead to his making only nine > tricks should not be deemed by the rules to make no more > tricks at all. I am not so sure about that. Our scope should have some meaning. And as I read it, sure terrible language there also, we strive for fairness. > > Bridge players, on the other hand, seem to see a great deal wrong with the > notion that if you claim something to be a trick when it is not, you > lose anything at all. That statement sounds so exaggerated that you must have given your keyboard to somebody else for an emergency pause. Kojak: > >I don't know where the title "More Faulty Directing" originated, but > it seems to me that it probably should have been entitled "More Faulty > Thinking." David: > No, no. Just about every thread that has ever been started on > this list > could have that title. ton: There you are yourself again. David: > But what I don't want is for there to be a dichotomy between the game of > bridge and the Laws of bridge; unfortunately, the way things > are going, > the gap is widening and not contracting. ton: Nonsense, give me the facts and don't bring up BLML. This is just a medium demonstrating differences, not something contributing to a gap. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 20:13:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HAC5g16118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 20:12:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4HABwt16084 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 20:11:58 +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 MAA26976; Thu, 17 May 2001 12:07:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA22217; Thu, 17 May 2001 12:10:55 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010517121509.008927e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:15:09 +0200 To: "Robert E. Harris" , "Kooijman, A." , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: References: < <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B85B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:35 16/05/01 -0500, Robert E. Harris wrote: >A. Kooijman wrote, (snip) > > >>What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this >>situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before we >>have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to know your >>decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion about the play of >>the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play continues. (my assumption >>is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' means she thought all her trumps to >>be good). >> >>ton > >I'd play the queen (to make everyone show out) before I claimed, but I'm >very forgetful about cards played. AG : so would I, and for the same reason, but the question here is : would every sane-in-mind bridge player (assuming such a person exists) play the Queen first ? Or would only careful bridge players (same remark) ? The answer to this question tells us how to rule, and it seems that a majority of us assumed the former. 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 May 17 20:24:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HANgK20194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 20:23:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f238.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.238]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4HANat20164 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 20:23:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 17 May 2001 03:23:03 -0700 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 17 May 2001 10:23:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:23:03 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2001 10:23:03.0922 (UTC) FILETIME=[5B598D20:01C0DEBB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >But the policy has this in its favour: it's mechanical, it's simple, it >works, and it means that no director or appeals committee ever has to >answer the question posed by Ton Kooijman's poll. The notion that >declarer would play Q1098 by leading the queen 25% of the time is an >interesting one, and I can see whence it arose since thinking in this >area is hugely muddled, but I don't think it's a valid way to rule. > >David Burn >London, England With regards to the '25% Notion', in this case,it should be the '50% Notion' because the ten, nine and eight are equals whether the jack is outstanding or not, and the queen can be given equal weight with all three of them, not just with one. The fact that this can even be suggested (whether it's rubbish or not, and I suspect it is) is, in my opinion, an enormous argument in favour of the EBU's new policy, which is simple, straightforward and quantifiable. The EBU are to be commended for trying to clarify matters rather than searching out esoteric ways of obfuscating them. _________________________________________________________________ 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 May 17 21:00:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HAxp202962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 20:59:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HAxjt02922 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 20:59:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4HAvSd27887 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 06:57:28 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20010516215938.THXW3476202.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> References: <20010516215938.THXW3476202.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 06:57:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I don't see this at all. > >What do you play from AKQJ it does not matter. > >Similarly it does not matter which card you play from Q1098 when you >believe there are no there are no trumps left. > >I think the onus is on the claimer to state that the trumps are >being played from the top down in case there is an outstanding trump. Well, I dunno about anyone else, but, to me, in your first case it truly doesn't matter, since you have 4 top trumps, missing none. However, in the second case, you might be missing the jack. If I were playing on that suit, I will always play the queen first, except when (a) I think the Jack is still out, (b) I think it's finessable, and (c) I'm not sure it'll drop. Then, I may take the finesse - if I can get to where I can do that. If I can't finesse, I'll play to drop the jack, even if I'm pretty sure it won't drop - what else can I do? :-) If I were claiming, I hope I'd remember to specify that I'd play the Q first (except as noted above) but if I didn't, and I got ruled against, so be it. I'm no expert, but that's my take, until somebody shows me it's wrong. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOwOvBb2UW3au93vOEQLA9QCeLZCq88kIcUX+RpfJOX6rGFJn9UEAoIJB ObrU2/RT0jjPSM3NRAP+1gqC =q7l0 -----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 May 17 21:21:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HBJrZ06588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 21:19:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HBJlt06584 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 21:19:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4HBHSM14077 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 07:17:28 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 07:18:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 richard.hills wrote: >I agree with Gordon's ruling, but not with his reasoning. L19A2 specifies >the only correct way to Double. There is no corresponding Law specifying >the only correct way to Pass. Therefore, West's ambiguous call must be >defined as *not* a Double. Agreed, but bidding boxes were in use, and so regulations for their use were presumably in effect. I could be mistaken, but I think such regulations usually state that the proper way to make *any* call when using bidding boxes is to put the card corresponding to that call on the table. Okay, I just looked at the ACBL regs. They say "A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent." So, if no card is taken out of the box at all, no call has been made. From his domain name, Gordon would appear to be in Alaska, so ACBL regs would apply. Whether this facilitates a ruling, or complicates one, I leave to others. :-) 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/AwUBOwOztr2UW3au93vOEQL6vgCg1nwSBIxT+yo4owFJv0ZtWwHkOowAoOWr l6PZzdqiBYdbFIPN1f9FYmee =b18i -----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 May 17 21:33:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HBUQb06606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 21:30:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4HBUJt06601 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 21:30:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial2.isi.com [192.103.52.193]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id EAA20963; Thu, 17 May 2001 04:29:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Polish ClubEd Reppert [ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 07:32:52 -0400 Message-ID: <000401c0dec5$1be219a0$c13467c0@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The 2H opening is GCC legal if it promises at least 10 HCP > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 7:06 PM > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: [BLML] Polish ClubEd Reppert > [ereppert@rochester.rr.com] > > > > *** PGP Signature Status: good > *** Signer: Ed Reppert (Invalid) > *** Signed: 5/15/01 7:11:42 PM > *** Verified: 5/16/01 11:36:01 PM > *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** > > >Well, maybe this restrictive policy is the main reason why > Americans are so > >surprised at the sight of moderately unexpected systems. In > this case, one > >should ask for a change in American convention charts, not in > >international ones. > > Probably. Not sure the ACBL would go along, though. :-) > > I've been reading George Rosencranz latest wrinkles to Romex, in > _Godfrey's Stairway to the Stars_. Basically, it a forcing club > system, with elements from Precision, Blue Team Club, and Romex. > I'd like to try it, but there are two openings that aren't allowed > on the GCC: 2H to show the three suiter short in diamonds, and 2NT > to show a 3 level preempt in either minor (leaving the 3minor > opening to show a good suit, so partner can more easily decide > whether to try 3NT). Both openings are Mid Chart in the ACBL, I > think. The 2NT opening is Brown Sticker under WBF rules. > > I doubt the ACBL will change the designation of either of those any > time soon, either. :-) > > > Regards, > > Ed > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE *** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** - -- ====================================================================== == (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOwNHg7FdMFbo8dHHEQLQRwCZAQZ0GsR2UMzuS0Jmz2xYc+9/d24AoJdB hH6uRt8qfoSCcjfhzZW3oBBU =Vdhw -----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 May 17 22:03:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HC3Sr07737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:03:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HC3Lt07702 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:03:22 +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 f4HC2pI97613 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 08:02:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517074859.00b93680@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, 17 May 2001 08:04:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing 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 07:28 PM 5/16/01, richard.hills wrote: >The ACBL rules it is irrational to play a suit bottom up. However, >occasionally I have played a suit, where pips such as 865 remain after >several rounds have been played earlier. I have routinely led a low pip, >expecting it did not matter, only to lose an unnecessary trick to the 7. > >Does this make me a worse player than Mrs Guggenheim? :-) No, it makes you a player who occasionally makes irrational plays, just like the rest of us. I'm confident that your irrational plays are less frequent than Mrs. Guggenheim's. But, Richard, having admitted that you might lead low in this position, imagine that in some future session you claim the last three tricks with your 865, having forgotten that the 7 was out, and the ruling is that you are presumed to lead low and lose the last three tricks. In the same session, Mrs. Worldclassexpert makes exactly the same claim and is awarded the last three tricks, on the grounds that it would be irrational for a player of *her* class to start the suit with a low card. Would you consider that fair or equitable? Would you think that an official interpretation of law that made these both correct rulings was good for the game? 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 May 17 22:11:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HCBao10638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:11:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HCBTt10600 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:11:30 +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 OAA13661; Thu, 17 May 2001 14:10:45 +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 OAA26538; Thu, 17 May 2001 14:10:27 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010517141439.008e4100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 14:14:39 +0200 To: "David Burn" , , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <011e01c0de80$7a821720$69357ad5@pbncomputer> References: <54.149e779a.2834849f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:20 17/05/01 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Some of the subscribers to this list may have played Scrabble, a game in >which you have to put valid words on the board at your turn. If you put >down an invalid word, you lose your turn, you are penalised some points, >and (for practical purposes) you lose the game unless you were so far >ahead that you could not but win. Now, if Scrabble were governed as >bridge is governed, when you put down an illegal word, you would be >allowed to take it back and have another go AG : you missed the right analogy ; if somebody puts down one word, claiming it is the name of a bird, and it is not, but incidentally it happens to be the name for an obscure mineral, then his word is allowed to lie on the board. If somebody claims such and such card are tricks, because so-and-so, and they are, but for some other reason (eg, the normal order of play will make them tricks even if they are not from the beginning ; or, there is an outstanding trump, but the plain suit cards are tricks because they can't be ruffed), the claimer is allowed his tricks. BTW, I'm a member of the belgian national AC for Duplicate Scrabble, and I can tell you we have as much problems as to what should be allowed or not (ask a Duplicate player about linking letters). Regards, alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 22:26:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HCPV015491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:25:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f4HCPOt15454 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:25:24 +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 f4HCOrc93993 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 08:24:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517081524.00b77a90@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, 17 May 2001 08:27:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:21 PM 5/16/01, Gordon wrote: >At last night's club game we had our first ruling in some months which led >to ruffled feathers all around. And, amazingly, it wasn't a bad claim, nor >was it a dispute over whether UI had been misused. > >None vulnerable, South dealer: > >West North East South > 2H >Dbl Pass 2S 4H > * Pass Pass ? > >2H was natural and weak. > >Not unexpectedly given the bidding, declarer failed by some four tricks. >North attempted to write -200 on the traveller, which West hotly >disputed: no, 800! > >At (*), West neither pulled out a Pass nor a Double from her >bidding-box. She tapped her fingers on the table, on or near the Double >card she placed on the table during the first round of bidding. This was >followed by some sort of general agreement no-one else was going to bid -- >pass cards, taps, picking up of bidding cards, whatever. > >Now, 99% of the time when a player thumps the table with her fingers, she >has already passed several times and is merely indicating "yeah, yeah, >wake me when the auction is over, I'm not going to be sticking MY nose >into it again." > >Everyone agreed on the facts of what West physically did. Three people at >the table thought her physical actions indicated a pass. But there is no >denying West *wanted* to double in her own mind, though this sentiment >wasn't conveyed to the other players. > >So - what do you tell them to score it up as?? The law is remarkably >un-helpful. What West did wasn't the proper form of a double, nor was it >the proper form of a pass. > >At the table, I reminded the players that tapping the table was a bad >habit and the proper way to make ALL calls was to pull a new card from the >bidding box at each turn, and ruled that because a) taps most commonly are >used to indicated passes and b) noone bothered to dispute what the >contract was until the end of the hand, that 4H-4=-200 was the >result. West, obviously, didn't like this ruling very much. > >I can see how another director in the same situation would have ruled the >contract was 4Hx, -800. I can see how a third director would rule the >contract was 4Hx, but that South was harmed by West's improper procedure, >and adjust to -300 or -500, whatever best declarer play having been >forewarned there were 4 trumps offside would lead to. > >Would anyone care to offer an opinion as to which ruling is "right"? > >What would you do if West had appealed my ruling and it came before your >committee. (In particular, is this a matter of law or a matter of >judgment?) > >In practice there was no appeal because -200, -300, -500 and -800 are all >the same cold bottom after the rather suicidal 4H call. I too would have ruled that there was no double. Indicating a pass by tapping on the table, although never legally proper, is deeply ingrained in practice. Players have been tapping to pass since before bidding boxes were invented, indeed, since long before I was born. The fact that the other three players at the table took the tap to be a pass is indicative, and by itself sufficient justification for the ruling. I'd take a fairly hard line with a West who complained about such a ruling, pointing out that it was their own violation of procedure which created the situation, probably also by itself sufficient to justify the ruling. I would consider this a ruling on a matter of fact, not law, for purposes of L93. 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 May 17 22:35:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HCZ8P18838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:35:08 +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-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 f4HCYxt18798 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:34:59 +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 150Mz4-000Iti-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 May 2001 13:34:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 23:13:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <200105161740.SAA09418@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200105161740.SAA09418@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 >> Kooijman, A. writes >> >It certainly is a decision which keeps everybody happy, as does average+ for >> >both sides, which seems to become a popular ruling nowadays. But in my >> >opinion it is not a decision that is 'allowed' when applying L68-71. Yes, I >> >know that AC can do what they want, having 12C3 available. >> >> I do not see that they can do what they want with L12C3: the Law talks >> of varying an assigned adjusted score. There are no adjusted scores in >> claims so I believe a weighted score to be illegal in any jurisdiction. >[ No names - no pack drill. Whatever that means. ] Perhaps the fact that you have .uk in your sig gives something away! >At a national event there was a claim in 7NT of the 13 top tricks -- >unfortunately declarer's statement could be understood to mean he/she >would be locked in hand/dummy. The ruling was split 7NT-1 to declarer, >7NT= to defence (I guess neither side had won the sympathy of the TD); >and both sides appealed! > >While deliberating, the AC asked a TD if they could give a weighted >score (e.g. 60% of 7NT= / 40% of 7NT-1) to both sides. He said that he >did not think it was legal (no route from L70 to L12C2/3) but added >that as an AC they could do what they liked, the worst that could >happen was a letter from the national body's law committee. > >Sure enough, the decision was a weighted score and, when the national >body's law committee reviewed the decision, the AC members got a >stroppy letter. So that particular jurisdiction believed a weighted >score to be illegal. Anyway, it does no harm to point out the SO was the EBU. Their comment was that it was interesting to find a case where both the Director's ruling and the AC's decision were totally illegal. I am pleased to say that I was neither the TD not on the AC. In fact, my partner was the AC Chairman, and when she told me what she had done over dinner she was a little surprised at my reaction! It was quite a memorable day because while that appeal was being heard I was chairing another one with two female members and myself. The young lady on my right wanted to call the Director back and ask him how on earth he could have made such a stupid decision. I dissuaded her, though I was sorely tempted! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 22:35:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HCZ7H18833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:35:07 +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-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 f4HCYut18786 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:34:57 +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 150Mz4-000Itk-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 May 2001 13:34:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 23:17:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Brambledown wrote: > >>The hand we have been discussing and in which I described the claim as >>appalling is: >> >> > >Contract is 3 NT. Opening lead is a small diamond. >> > > AKxx QJx >> > > KQJ xxxx >> > > xx AKx >> > > Kxxx Axx >> > > Declarer sees the diamond lead and immediately says "I'll take >> > > my 9 top tricks in spades, diamonds and clubs and give you the rest". > >Of late, I've had trouble following things on blml, because the >discussion gets convoluted, and I lose interest. :-) But this, as a >simple ruling problem, seems straightforward. The claim is appalling, >I think, because declarer has only 8 top tricks, not nine. So you >look at all four hands, you see what happens when he plays off his >eight top tricks, and then you have to decide whether he exits with a >diamond, a heart, or a club, and what happens next. The defense >should get as many of the last five tricks as seems likely they would >get, and if that's all five, declarer is down one, otherwise, he >makes his contract (even, possibly, with an overtrick). > >At the risk of the discussion getting convoluted, I'll ask "what's >the big deal"? :-) Oh, I can answer that one. If he cashes all his tricks that's eight, so one view is that he gets eight. If he applies any commonsense at any time he gets ten, so another view is he gets ten. The people who think he gets ten are the Little Endians of Gulliver's Travels. The people who think he gets eight are the Big Endiands. My view? Oh, no, no chance. I have given up answering about claims - I am sulking where claims are concerned. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 22:42:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HCg2N21237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:42:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HCftt21201 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:41:56 +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 f4HCfPc95059 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 08:41:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517083401.00b75180@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, 17 May 2001 08:43:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <54.149e779a.2834849f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_3853099==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_3853099==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:34 PM 5/16/01, Schoderb wrote: >Seems to me that the policy in England, much like the ACBL policy in this >situation is what is needed. What is not needed is a poll of everyone to >arrive at the "correct" conclusion. Pretty soon we'll be running >polls to >see what the Law says, (have I already missed some of those?)instead >of using >the established structure for NBO, WBFLC, etc., to tell us what the Law >intends. I don't know where the title "More Faulty Directing" >originated, but >it seems to me that it probably should have been entitled "More Faulty >Thinking." That the annointed high muckamucks of the NBOs and the WBFLC should allow the views of a majority of ordinary players to influence their thinking? Unimaginable! What other horrors might such faulty thinking lead to? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_3853099==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 09:34 PM 5/16/01, Schoderb wrote:

Seems to me that the policy in England, much like the ACBL policy in this
situation is what is needed.  What is not needed is a poll of everyone to
arrive at the "correct" conclusion.  Pretty soon we'll be running polls to
see what the Law says, (have I already missed some of those?)instead of using
the established structure for NBO, WBFLC, etc., to tell us what the Law
intends. I don't know where the title "More Faulty Directing" originated, but
it seems to me that it probably should have been entitled "More Faulty
Thinking."

That the annointed high muckamucks of the NBOs and the WBFLC should allow the views of a majority of ordinary players to influence their thinking?  Unimaginable!  What other horrors might such faulty thinking lead to?


Eric Landau                     elandau@cais.com
APL Solutions, Inc.             elandau@acm.org
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 589-4621
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_3853099==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 17 23:15:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HDFfR03070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 23:15:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HDFYt03030 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 23:15:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-12.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.12]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4HDF3n02692 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:15:04 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B038883.93EF5E22@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:14:59 +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 out of turn References: <3.0.6.32.20010515143357.0082f6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B02443C.196BC673@village.uunet.be> <004201c0de66$79889ac0$69357ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > When both lines are "normal", and one is "inferior", can we > > not agree that, _if it is absolutely certain that claimer > > will notice both lines, and that he can easily work out the > > difference between them_, that it is "irrational" for him to > > choose the risky line in team play ? > > > > I have re-emphasised the important bit "if it is certain > > that he notices both and if it is easy to work out the > > difference, then it becomes irrational to choose the > > inferior line". > > Well, this principle might apply in the Belgian Claim case. But it would > be pretty useless as a principle to guide directors and ACs in all > cases. Suppose I play a no trump slam in which I require four tricks > from this spade suit (all other suits being doubly stopped): > > A432 > > Q10987 > > but owing to circumstances beyond my control (viz: the bar being open) I > think that I have the king of spades instead of the queen. I table my > cards and announce that I will play spades safely for one loser, and > claim my twelve tricks. (Note: this kind of claim happens all the time > in the £100 game at TGR's, where time is money.) > David, you have touched upon the singlemost important task for a director in claim cases : find out what the claimer was mistaken about. Then decide when (if ever) he is absolutely certain to discover this (in your case, I would say, when the queen is taken by the king, or when the bar closes, whichever comes sooner). Then decide upon all normal lines that are left to now awakened claimer and award the least successful. > Now, it is quite easy for me to notice that I could play: > > ace and another spade; > or low to the queen and then cash the ace; > or low to the queen and then run the ten; > or low to the ten and then cash the ace; > or low to the ten and then run the queen; > or run the queen and then cash the ace; > or run the queen and then run the ten; > or run the ten and then cash the ace; > or run the ten and then run the queen. > Quite easy indeed. I might even manage this. Might. > It is also quite easy for me to work out the different chances of > success for each of these lines. You see why you need level of the claimer in the deciding bit. I would never be able to throw out clearly inferior lines from that lot. > Would it be "irrational" for me to > follow one of the inferior ones? Given that : - You convince me that you had noticed it was a queen, not a king, and would have done so in actual play. - You convince me that some of the lines above are clearly inferior. Yes, I would be allowed to rule those lines irrational. I don't believe there would be enough eliminated so that losing 2 tricks would be out of the question. > (Note for those not familiar with > percentage plays: the correct technical line is ace and another, but if > RHO is not of the very highest calibre, the best practical shot is low > to the ten and then run the queen.) > > 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 Thu May 17 23:19:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HDJNv04360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 23:19:23 +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-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 f4HDJGt04320 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 23:19:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-12.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.12]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4HDIkn04260 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:18:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B038883.93EF5E22@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:14:59 +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 out of turn References: <3.0.6.32.20010515143357.0082f6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B02443C.196BC673@village.uunet.be> <004201c0de66$79889ac0$69357ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > When both lines are "normal", and one is "inferior", can we > > not agree that, _if it is absolutely certain that claimer > > will notice both lines, and that he can easily work out the > > difference between them_, that it is "irrational" for him to > > choose the risky line in team play ? > > > > I have re-emphasised the important bit "if it is certain > > that he notices both and if it is easy to work out the > > difference, then it becomes irrational to choose the > > inferior line". > > Well, this principle might apply in the Belgian Claim case. But it would > be pretty useless as a principle to guide directors and ACs in all > cases. Suppose I play a no trump slam in which I require four tricks > from this spade suit (all other suits being doubly stopped): > > A432 > > Q10987 > > but owing to circumstances beyond my control (viz: the bar being open) I > think that I have the king of spades instead of the queen. I table my > cards and announce that I will play spades safely for one loser, and > claim my twelve tricks. (Note: this kind of claim happens all the time > in the £100 game at TGR's, where time is money.) > David, you have touched upon the singlemost important task for a director in claim cases : find out what the claimer was mistaken about. Then decide when (if ever) he is absolutely certain to discover this (in your case, I would say, when the queen is taken by the king, or when the bar closes, whichever comes sooner). Then decide upon all normal lines that are left to now awakened claimer and award the least successful. > Now, it is quite easy for me to notice that I could play: > > ace and another spade; > or low to the queen and then cash the ace; > or low to the queen and then run the ten; > or low to the ten and then cash the ace; > or low to the ten and then run the queen; > or run the queen and then cash the ace; > or run the queen and then run the ten; > or run the ten and then cash the ace; > or run the ten and then run the queen. > Quite easy indeed. I might even manage this. Might. > It is also quite easy for me to work out the different chances of > success for each of these lines. You see why you need level of the claimer in the deciding bit. I would never be able to throw out clearly inferior lines from that lot. > Would it be "irrational" for me to > follow one of the inferior ones? Given that : - You convince me that you had noticed it was a queen, not a king, and would have done so in actual play. - You convince me that some of the lines above are clearly inferior. Yes, I would be allowed to rule those lines irrational. I don't believe there would be enough eliminated so that losing 2 tricks would be out of the question. > (Note for those not familiar with > percentage plays: the correct technical line is ace and another, but if > RHO is not of the very highest calibre, the best practical shot is low > to the ten and then run the queen.) > > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 00:55:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HEssn01122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 00:54:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HEsmt01118 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 00:54:48 +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 f4HEsII10398 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 10:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517102912.00b727f0@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, 17 May 2001 10:56:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <3B038883.93EF5E22@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010515143357.0082f6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B02443C.196BC673@village.uunet.be> <004201c0de66$79889ac0$69357ad5@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 04:14 AM 5/17/01, Herman wrote: >Given that : > >- You convince me that you had noticed it was a queen, not a >king, and would have done so in actual play. >- You convince me that some of the lines above are clearly >inferior. > >Yes, I would be allowed to rule those lines irrational. >I don't believe there would be enough eliminated so that >losing 2 tricks would be out of the question. That can't be right. TFLB says we must consider inferior lines but must not consider irrational ones. But Herman says that if he is convinced that some lines are clearly inferior he will rule that they are irrational. Doesn't that contradict prima facie exactly the distinction the law tells us to make? Yet if we were to accept that the standard for adjudicating faulty claims varies with the ability of the player making the claim, we would have no choice but to interpret the footnote as though it read "...play that would be less than clearly careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not clearly careless or inferior", Herman's turning "clearly inferior" into a synonym for "irrational" would be correct, and the footnote would be meaninglessly redundant to L70A, which already tells us that "any doubtful points shall be resolved against 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 Fri May 18 01:18:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HFITu01169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 01:18:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HFIMt01165 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 01:18:23 +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 LAA12588 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 11:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105171525.LAA12588@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish ClubEd Reppert [ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <000401c0dec5$1be219a0$c13467c0@isi.com> References: <000401c0dec5$1be219a0$c13467c0@isi.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 11:25:59 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 17 May 2001 at 7:32, "Richard Willey" wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >The 2H opening [three-suited, short in diamonds - mdf] is GCC legal >if it promises at least 10 HCP > ...and promises at least 5-4 in two known suits. Sorry - 2C or 2D three-suited is legal, but 2H is not at the GCC level. http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/gcc.htm , Opening Bids, 3, 5, and 6. And I understand the reasoning behind this one - 2D three-suited short in diamonds is easy to defend, because it will rarely be passed. 2H three-suited short in diamonds is likely to be passed frequently - and so is much harder to defend. Definately over the borderline the ACBL considers GCC-level (which is why, this weekend in my first Mid-Chart game at a tournament, our 2D multi does *not* have a strong component). Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 01:20:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HFJvJ01182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 01:19:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HFJpt01177 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 01:19:51 +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 KAA18380; Thu, 17 May 2001 10:19:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010517101659.007b8e40@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:16:59 -0500 To: "David Burn" , , From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <011e01c0de80$7a821720$69357ad5@pbncomputer> References: <54.149e779a.2834849f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As usual, I think they're both wrong. :):):) At 04:20 AM 5/17/2001 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Kojak wrote: > >>Seems to me that the policy in England, much like the ACBL policy in >this >situation is what is needed. > >One small step for a mechanic. If only, as has been said before, one >could consult some table that would provide a definitive answer as to >whether such-and-such a play is "normal" or "irrational", there would >not be any problem. However, such a table would be difficult to >construct in any case, and impossible if the additional variable "for >the class of player involved" is introduced. So it happens that each >individual case is decided "on its merits" by people who have not got >very much clue about anything. Well, I don't think it matters much what the Law says if it really is enforced by people "who have not got very much clue about anything." >>What is not needed is a poll of everyone to >arrive at the "correct" conclusion. > >Oh, I don't know. At least the responses to such a poll might provide a >basis for constructing the beginnings of a table on the above lines. Indeed. I think this may be the only sentence in David's post that I agree with. What on earth does such a poll hurt? >>Pretty soon we'll be running polls to >see what the Law says, (have I already missed some of those?) instead of >using >the established structure for NBO, WBFLC, etc., to tell us what the Law >intends. > >Quite so. The difficulty that I have always had is that one ought not to >need a "structure" to tell us what the Law intends. If the Law itself >cannot tell us what it intends, then it is a pretty shocking Law. Now, >this is not anyone's fault, because it is very difficult indeed for >anyone to make a Law such that everyone else could understand what it >meant. If they could, then 90% of accountants, attorneys, duns and >receivers' men would be out of business, to the inestimable detriment of >mankind. Your gloss contradicts your position. Given that people find it virtually impossible to write a law so clearly that it can be understood by everyone, and not only understood by everyone but free of loopholes that will allow its manipulation by those who understand it but have self- interested reason to _mis_understand it, there is always a need for a body to interpret what the law means. The problem with Kojak's suggestion is two-fold. First, there are many adjudication decisions that need not be taken to NBO or WBFLC level. If someone wants to know whether 4S would have been a LA on a certain hand, do we have to call the WBFLC to get an answer? If I want to know whether playing a smaller card from QT98 is 'irrational', do I have to wait for the WBFLC to answer? What's wrong with polling a group like this one? But, secondly, the higher level authorities in bridge have no mechanism for swiftly making such decisions. I want to know how to apply the law on claims as it is written and understood _now_, but an official interpretation of it with regard to these questions is some time off. In the meantime, if I discover that a clear majority of the experienced and intelligent people on this list think that it's not irrational to play the 8, I will take that very seriously if I am called upon to rule on a similar hand. By all means, let us have a poll and see what most people think. Further, the Powers have manifestly failed to promulgate their decisions below the highest levels. For example, how many ACBL directors not on this list figured out to look in the tech files on their scoring program to discover that the ACBL says that in disputed claims suits are cashed from the top? How many club directors in the ACBL have any idea what laws were changed in the 1997 laws change, or what interpretations of those laws have been passed by the WBFLC or any other governing body? As long as WBFLC [et al] decisions are not promulgated effectively, then most low-level decisions will not abide by them, and I think I have a duty to figure out how most people think they should be ruled. >However, we are not in the business of making Laws that might ruin >people's lives; we are making the rules of a game. Now, there is no >intrinsic reason why the rules of a game should be "fair"; there is no >intrinsic reason why (for example) a player who claims ten tricks when >there is some lie of cards that might lead to his making only nine >tricks should not be deemed by the rules to make no more tricks at all. This would be true if we were creating a game _de novo_. If we were doing that, we could make the penalty for a bad claim whatever we wanted it to be. But: a) If the consequence of this is fewer claims and longer and duller sessions, it is a bad idea however little you value 'fairness'. b) We are not creating a game from scratch. People have played bridge for years, millions play it now, and they enter a game with reasonable expectations of how it will be played. If we change the law on claims, or change our interpretation of it, so that in the example case claimer is given zero tricks, then we _have_ committed an injustice, and we will very quickly start losing players. [They _may_ not quit playing bridge, of course, but they'll play it out of range of our directors.] Once players of a game have a reasonable expectation of how it will be adjudicated, then it becomes possible to make 'unfair' laws and interpretations. >Some of the subscribers to this list may have played Scrabble, a game in >which you have to put valid words on the board at your turn. If you put >down an invalid word, you lose your turn, you are penalised some points, >and (for practical purposes) you lose the game unless you were so far >ahead that you could not but win. Now, if Scrabble were governed as >bridge is governed, when you put down an illegal word, you would be >allowed to take it back and have another go, just as a man who claims >tricks he does not have is (in effect) deemed to make the tricks he >would have made had he been the wonderful player we all know he is, >instead of some clod who cannot tell whether or not he has got an entry >to his hand. Please, David. Claims are an attempt to _abbreviate_ play, they are not normal play. If you want to complain about L25b, which is the nearest equivalent to the modified Scrabble you imagine, you are free to do so, although you will have to stand in line behind many others. But claims are a different animal altogether. >Scrabble players do not see anything wrong with the notion that if you >claim something to be a word when it is not, you lose big time. Bridge >players, on the other hand, seem to see a great deal wrong with the >notion that if you claim something to be a trick when it is not, you >lose anything at all. Sure, in part because that's the way it's been done for years. If Scrabble had been played for decades with the rule that you can take a word back with no penalty any time you want, and then suddenly the rules were changed without it being explained to the vast majority of people, then they _would_ see something wrong with it. But, again, I don't think Bridge is similar enough to Scrabble for this to matter. Obviously, analogies should be limited to more closely related sports, such as various breeds of football. >>I don't know where the title "More Faulty Directing" originated, but >it seems to me that it probably should have been entitled "More Faulty >Thinking." > >No, no. Just about every thread that has ever been started on this list >could have that title. How would we know where we were? Indeed. :) >>I've just returned from the South American Championships where at least >half >of the hands were claimed at some point. There was little or no >discussion; >everyone acted as though their opponents were sane; when asked to >explain >there was no reluctance to state what you were displaying; and I very >much >doubt that anyone got away with anything, or was disadvantaged by the >claims. >It was really like playing bridge instead of trying to get something by >playing the Laws. > >Bill, bridge *is* the Laws. To quote Grattan, many years ago: "it is No, it isn't. Not anymore. If the laws were changed tomorrow such that bad claims were resolved by giving zero tricks to the claimer, and someone in my local "bridge" club were to make a bad claim and have it ruled under the old laws, I would regard the statement "Ah, the people in this club are not playing bridge" as an absurdity. Bridge now exists as an entity in its own right, and I think that any law change that monkeys too much with the fundamentally understood principles of that game is a bad thing. >never unethical to wish to play a game according to its Laws". If there I think Grattan's wrong. I know some will regard that as tantamount to sacrilege. :) But it is sometimes unethical to wish to play a game, any game, according to the letter of the law when everyone knows the letter of the law does not convey what the law really means to the vast majority of players, especially when this is done to gain advantage against those who are ignorant of this possible reading (or deliberate misreading) of that law. >is a difference between playing bridge and playing the Laws, that is the >fault of the Laws, not the fault of the players. In a national >championship, just as in an international championship, players simply >ignore those Laws or regulations that they know to be stupid, and get on >with the game. But they do this in part because they know that if they >violate the Laws, they will not suffer - Herman will be on hand to tell >them that of course they would have noticed in time that they didn't >have the tricks they thought they had, or you will be on hand to tell >them that... > >>I know we need to fix the language of the Laws, but NOT >their substance for the most part Here I agree. I think the substance of the laws, even the claim laws is just fine. there are some cases where we need to fix the language, and a few cases where we need to alter the rules a bit, but I don't think they are radically broken. >The language is the substance. There is no other; the notion that there >is something called "bridge" which exists independently of the Laws of >bridge is mere fancy. I don't really mind very much whether we play the I'm a fanciful person. :) >game your way or my way - to tell you the truth, at the table I play it >your way, but when I'm asked to rule on stuff, I rule it my way. But >what I don't want is for there to be a dichotomy between the game of >bridge and the Laws of bridge; unfortunately, the way things are going, >the gap is widening and not contracting. But changing the laws to create serious penalties where no serious penalties previously existed, or to remove judgment from TD's where such judgment previously existed, can only serve to widen that gap, not narrow it. >David Burn Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 01:33:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HFXZT02394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 01:33:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HFXSt02359 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 01:33:29 +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 KAA23705 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 10:33:12 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010517103058.007dc100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:30:58 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517102912.00b727f0@127.0.0.1> References: <3B038883.93EF5E22@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010515143357.0082f6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B02443C.196BC673@village.uunet.be> <004201c0de66$79889ac0$69357ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:56 AM 5/17/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 04:14 AM 5/17/01, Herman wrote: > >>Given that : >> >>- You convince me that you had noticed it was a queen, not a >>king, and would have done so in actual play. >>- You convince me that some of the lines above are clearly >>inferior. >> >>Yes, I would be allowed to rule those lines irrational. >>I don't believe there would be enough eliminated so that >>losing 2 tricks would be out of the question. > >That can't be right. TFLB says we must consider inferior lines but >must not consider irrational ones. But Herman says that if he is >convinced that some lines are clearly inferior he will rule that they >are irrational. Doesn't that contradict prima facie exactly the >distinction the law tells us to make? What Herman meant, as he has stated before, is that if the TD is convinced that not only is a line inferior but _also_ that _the player himself knew and saw that it was clearly inferior_, then it becomes irrational to play that way. His view is that you allow inferior lines to count as 'normal' when it was not obvious to declarer that they were inferior. In this case, Herman was saying that there are so many lines that he would not be able to tell which were inferior, and so they're all normal [or several of them, anyway, including some inferior ones], but if you could demonstrate to him that you, as claimer, knew that they were inferior [and therefore wouldn't have played that way], then it would be irrational for _you_ to make them. Herman does not think it is irrational to follow an inferior line--he thinks it is irrational for a player to follow a line that he _knows_ to be inferior. This strikes me as a reasonable position, although I do not _always_ agree. >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 01:40:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HFe7M04675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 01:40:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HFe0t04642 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 01:40:00 +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 KAA27861 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 10:39:44 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010517103730.007c63b0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:37:30 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517074859.00b93680@127.0.0.1> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:04 AM 5/17/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 07:28 PM 5/16/01, richard.hills wrote: > >But, Richard, having admitted that you might lead low in this position, >imagine that in some future session you claim the last three tricks >with your 865, having forgotten that the 7 was out, and the ruling is >that you are presumed to lead low and lose the last three tricks. In >the same session, Mrs. Worldclassexpert makes exactly the same claim >and is awarded the last three tricks, on the grounds that it would be >irrational for a player of *her* class to start the suit with a low >card. Would you consider that fair or equitable? Would you think that >an official interpretation of law that made these both correct rulings >was good for the game? Well, if I admit that I often forget about outstanding trumps when I claim, and I claim in a case where there's an outstanding trump, I should certainly expect to be ruled against. OTOH, if a player who virtually never forgets about an outstanding trump claims in those circumstances, I wouldn't expect her to be ruled against. How does this seem unfair? >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 May 18 02:15:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HGE2010122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 02:14:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HGDut10118 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 02:13:56 +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 LAA10157 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 11:13:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010517111123.007cda80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 11:11:23 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I'll make this quick. I think this can be my last word, although I'm happy to discuss it more if anyone is so 'irrational' as to want me to. :) >> I would argue that all of those principles are perfectly >>acceptable as a floor. In other words, I am happy with an SO that >>says "the following plays are irrational _for everybody_...", even >>if there are some other plays that are merely inferior for Mrs. G >>but are irrational for Mr. G. > >I agree with the above as stated, of course; I just don't think there >are such plays. If there were, it would mean that Garozzo's undisputed >superiority over Mrs. G. at the bridge table creates a presumption that >he is somehow a more rational person than Mrs. G., which is what >troubles the ordinary players. Then by all means let us jettison the word 'irrational'. I am happy with the idea that there are things that it would be irrational for someone else to do but not irrational for me, even though those people are not more rational than me. For example, if were to play a basketball game against NBA players, it would be irrational for me to try to drive past the defenders and score, because I could have little hope of succeeding, but it would be rational for Michael Jordan to try it, because he might make it. That doesn't mean that MJ is "more rational" than I am. By the same token, if David Burn can look at 10 ways of playing a card combination and see immediately that #7 will never gain a trick over #8 but will sometimes lose one, then it would be irrational for him to take line #7. If I can't see that, then it wouldn't be irrational for me to do it. That doesn't make him more rational than me, it just means that he has more ability to process bridge plays. But if many or most players can't understand this distinction, then let us delete the word 'irrational' and replace it with something like 'plays that the player could clearly see were inferior'. We might even put the burden on the player to show immediately and at the table that he could demonstrate the inferiority of the play. But let's not let a word disrail us. >> But, again, this means that you are doing exactly what I am >>afraid of--you are dragging claims down to the level of the [almost >>worst] player. "Irrational", "egregious", "patently ridiculous", >>"absurd", are all words that tell us that claimer chould be screwed >>nearly to the maximum possible level, especially when it is made clear >>that these terms are invariant. > >But I'm not. Those who do are the ones who are now arguing that >claimer should lose a trick to the outstanding trump in Chas's >four-card position. I think it would be not at all difficult to come >up with guidelines that are reasonable and uniform without being Draconian. Here _I_ was appealing to what the words mean, but in a different context. If you tell me, as TD, that 'irrational' means the things you suggested, then I will have no choice but to regard some really horrid lines as 'not-irrational', and thereby saddle good players with them. If you want reasonable, uniform standards, then choose reasonable, non- Draconians words. I don't think it is 'patently ridiculous' to play a low card from QT98, but I do think it is 'irrational' _in the context of a bridge claim_. It's no good writing regulations that say we cash suits from the top down while having the law still say that only 'patently ridiculous' plays are irrational. >I chastised David Stevenson for suggesting that we adjudicate claims by >determining "what would have happened had the hand been played out", >and I stand by that. The law doesn't tell us to determine that, it >tells us to determine only (a) what are all of the possible "normal" >lines, including the careless or inferior but not the irrational ones, >and (b) which of these leads to the least favorable result for the >claimer. So even if I were certain what would happen had you played >the hand out, there's nothing in the law to make it relevant. That's what _I_ think 'equity' means in a bridge hand. And, contrary to you, that's what _I_ think virtually all bridge players expect from claims resolution. They expect to get what they would have gotten had the hand been played out, losing close calls. If that's what 'equity' means to me and to most bridge players [the latter is an empirical question, of course], then L70a does, in effect, tell the TD to 'play the hand out'. >> In other words: If 'irrational' does not vary by class of >> player, >>then the footnote contradicts L70a. You can't do equity for Garozzo >>by making him play like Mrs. G, even if you delete the 'patently absurd' >>plays from Mrs. G's repertoire. OTOH, you can't do equity to me if I >>am playing against Mrs. G, she claims badly, and you employ a standard >>of play significantly _above_ her level. > >I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't jive with the ordinary >person's notion of what equity is. Dictionary says, "The state, ideal, We just disagree on that. >or quality of being just, impartial, and fair." Most people's idea of >"just, impartial and fair" is that everyone gets treated the same way, >that a "just, impartial and fair" adjudicator needs only the facts to >come to decision, not the names of the litigants. Now you and I >understand that this needn't necessarily be the case in this particular >context, but our rules should be written to make the game as conformant Exactly. I wasn't talking about 'equity' in general. I wasn't even really talking about the _word_ 'equity' in bridge. I am saying that this is what _I_ think people expect from claim resolution, this is how _I_ [and, I think, most people who read L70a] understand equity, and given that notion your reading of the footnote contradicts L70a. In other words--anything that is done to the footnote should be carefully measured against L70a. If you want to delete 'equity' from L70a to make it compatible with your reading of the footnote, that's at least consistent, although IMHO misguided. >as we can to what is held to be fair by the bulk of our players, not by >the majority of BLML laws mavens. I agree with this, too. We just don't agree on what is held to be fair by the bulk of our players. >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 May 18 03:13:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HHDYM10255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 03:13:34 +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-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 f4HHDPt10247 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 03:13:26 +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 150RKY-0003Ek-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 May 2001 18:12:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:22:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517074859.00b93680@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517074859.00b93680@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 >But, Richard, having admitted that you might lead low in this position, >imagine that in some future session you claim the last three tricks >with your 865, having forgotten that the 7 was out, and the ruling is >that you are presumed to lead low and lose the last three tricks. In >the same session, Mrs. Worldclassexpert makes exactly the same claim >and is awarded the last three tricks, on the grounds that it would be >irrational for a player of *her* class to start the suit with a low >card. Would you consider that fair or equitable? Would you think that >an official interpretation of law that made these both correct rulings >was good for the game? I would not rule this way, which seems illogical to me. Yes, I believe that allowing for the class of player in claims *is* good for the game, but I think this a bad example: how you play from 865 does not depend on the level of the player. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 03:13:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HHDYe10256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 03:13:34 +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-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 f4HHDPt10248 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 03:13:26 +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 150RKY-0003El-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 May 2001 18:12:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:17:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >richard.hills wrote: > >>I agree with Gordon's ruling, but not with his reasoning. L19A2 specifies >>the only correct way to Double. There is no corresponding Law specifying >>the only correct way to Pass. Therefore, West's ambiguous call must be >>defined as *not* a Double. > >Agreed, but bidding boxes were in use, and so regulations for their >use were presumably in effect. I could be mistaken, but I think such >regulations usually state that the proper way to make *any* call when >using bidding boxes is to put the card corresponding to that call on >the table. > >Okay, I just looked at the ACBL regs. They say "A call is considered >made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with >apparent intent." So, if no card is taken out of the box at all, no >call has been made. From his domain name, Gordon would appear to be >in Alaska, so ACBL regs would apply. > >Whether this facilitates a ruling, or complicates one, I leave to others. :-) I think you have to include custom and practice. With the exception of the Netherlands, which appears to have regulations to cover certain calls made incorrectly via Bidding Boxes, SOs so not generally have such regulations. Perhaps they should, similar to incomplete calls for dummy's cards which is covered in the Laws. But in practice when a player taps the table, writes on his score-card instead of calling, and so on, it is always taken as a pass, and so I believe this should be. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 03:58:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HHw3m12593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 03:58:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HHvut12544 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 03:57:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive481.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.1]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA03360; Thu, 17 May 2001 13:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002501c0defb$524a1c00$0111f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Tony Musgrove'" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B85B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 14:00:25 -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 Any play other than the Q of D I would consider irrational...but then I am in the acbl where it is considered that suits that are "all good" will be run from the top down as a standard set by the zonal authority. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." > What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this > situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before we > have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to know your > decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion about the play of > the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play continues. (my assumption > is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' means she thought all her trumps to > be good). > > 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 May 18 05:29:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HJSA814016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 05:28:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HJS2t13973 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 05:28:03 +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 f4HJRWm31987 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517151229.00b72ea0@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, 17 May 2001 15:29:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517074859.00b93680@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010517074859.00b93680@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:22 AM 5/17/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >But, Richard, having admitted that you might lead low in this position, > >imagine that in some future session you claim the last three tricks > >with your 865, having forgotten that the 7 was out, and the ruling is > >that you are presumed to lead low and lose the last three tricks. In > >the same session, Mrs. Worldclassexpert makes exactly the same claim > >and is awarded the last three tricks, on the grounds that it would be > >irrational for a player of *her* class to start the suit with a low > >card. Would you consider that fair or equitable? Would you think that > >an official interpretation of law that made these both correct rulings > >was good for the game? > > I would not rule this way, which seems illogical to me. Yes, I >believe that allowing for the class of player in claims *is* good for >the game, but I think this a bad example: how you play from 865 does not >depend on the level of the player. David, who is a thoughtful and consciencious TD, would not rule this way, and I suspect that neither would most of the rest of us who have been knee-deep in a virtual forest's worth of BLML discussions on how to adjudicate claims. Because, as David says, it would seem illogical to us. But that, of course, is simply our opinion. Under the rules as David would have them (and under the WBFLC interpretation of the current law), though, any TD or AC who disagreed with our opinion could not be faulted for making exactly such rulings. The positions in which rulings might vary by class of player is every bit as subjective a determination as class of player itself. Perhaps no TD or AC has ever made such rulings. Perhaps none ever will. But it is incontrovertable that there are a very large number of players in the ACBL who believe that such things happen all of the time. Hardly surprising, given that ACBL TDs/ACs ruling on contested claims typically treat the issue solely as a question of whether or not the player who claimed is good enough to have gotten the hand right had they played it out. 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 May 18 05:52:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HJq9616739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 05:52:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HJq2t16735 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 05:52:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id k.a.d147be8 (18711); Thu, 17 May 2001 15:51:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:51:05 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing To: cfgcs@eiu.edu, dburn@btinternet.com, Schoderb@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a.d147be8.283585a9_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_a.d147be8.283585a9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/17/01 11:19:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cfgcs@eiu.edu writes: > . For example, how many ACBL directors not on this list > figured out to look in the tech files on their scoring program to > discover that the ACBL says that in disputed claims suits are cashed > from the top? Lots of food for thought in your response, however the above is something I'd be willing to take a bet on -- even after almost 3 years out of the mainstream of ACBL TDs. I think you are misinformed as to the quality of TDs in ACBL, particularly when it comes to those that go to the NABCs. If I'm wrong then ACBL needs to up the ante on education, but I think Gary Blaiss will agree with me that you are wrong here. Kojak --part1_a.d147be8.283585a9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/17/01 11:19:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cfgcs@eiu.edu
writes:


.  For example, how many ACBL directors not on this list
figured out to look in the tech files on their scoring program to
discover that the ACBL says that in disputed claims suits are cashed
from the top?  


Lots of food for thought in your response, however the above is something I'd
be willing to take a bet on -- even after almost 3 years out of the
mainstream of ACBL TDs.  I think you are misinformed as to the quality of TDs
in ACBL, particularly when it comes to those that go to the NABCs.  If I'm
wrong then ACBL needs to up the ante on education, but I think Gary Blaiss
will agree with me that you are wrong here.

Kojak --part1_a.d147be8.283585a9_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 May 18 05:56:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HJuVl16751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 05:56:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f4HJuOt16747 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 05:56:25 +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 f4HJtsm34207 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517154758.00abd100@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, 17 May 2001 15:58:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010517103058.007dc100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517102912.00b727f0@127.0.0.1> <3B038883.93EF5E22@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010515143357.0082f6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B02443C.196BC673@village.uunet.be> <004201c0de66$79889ac0$69357ad5@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 11:30 AM 5/17/01, Grant wrote: >At 10:56 AM 5/17/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >At 04:14 AM 5/17/01, Herman wrote: > > > >>Given that : > >> > >>- You convince me that you had noticed it was a queen, not a > >>king, and would have done so in actual play. > >>- You convince me that some of the lines above are clearly > >>inferior. > >> > >>Yes, I would be allowed to rule those lines irrational. > >>I don't believe there would be enough eliminated so that > >>losing 2 tricks would be out of the question. > > > >That can't be right. TFLB says we must consider inferior lines but > >must not consider irrational ones. But Herman says that if he is > >convinced that some lines are clearly inferior he will rule that they > >are irrational. Doesn't that contradict prima facie exactly the > >distinction the law tells us to make? > > What Herman meant, as he has stated before, is that if the TD >is convinced that not only is a line inferior but _also_ that _the >player himself knew and saw that it was clearly inferior_, then it >becomes irrational to play that way. His view is that you allow >inferior lines to count as 'normal' when it was not obvious to >declarer that they were inferior. In this case, Herman was saying >that there are so many lines that he would not be able to tell >which were inferior, and so they're all normal [or several of them, >anyway, including some inferior ones], but if you could demonstrate >to him that you, as claimer, knew that they were inferior [and therefore >wouldn't have played that way], then it would be irrational for _you_ >to make them. > Herman does not think it is irrational to follow an inferior >line--he thinks it is irrational for a player to follow a line that >he _knows_ to be inferior. This strikes me as a reasonable position, >although I do not _always_ agree. I have described Herman's position as: For a good enough player, line X is irrational. Grant has described Herman's position as: For a player good enough to know that line X is inferior, it is irrational for him to follow it. I fail to appreciate any practical distinction between these formulations; I cannot conceive of a scenario in which accepting one them rather than the other would make a difference in a ruling. 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 May 18 06:04:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HK4WG18800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 06:04:32 +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-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 f4HK4Lt18740 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 06:04:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id d.46.14d71eb7 (18711); Thu, 17 May 2001 16:03:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <46.14d71eb7.28358897@aol.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:03:35 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing To: elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_46.14d71eb7.28358897_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_46.14d71eb7.28358897_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/17/01 8:42:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com writes: > That the annointed high muckamucks of the NBOs and the WBFLC should allow > the views of a majority of ordinary players to influence their thinking? > Unimaginable! What other horrors might such faulty thinking lead to? > > > Do I detect some sarcasm in this? Everytime we get going on these threads we interject comparisons with other games, sports, and whatever else is handy to "prove" our point. I find it hard to remain aware that this is a discussion group where there are no holds barred -- not official at all, -- and which has an enviable record of finding fault with anything that even slightly suggests that there is an established way to get an answer, interpretation, or "reading" of the Law. Gee I thought there were even such things as "common Law" "precedence" and "intent." And, God forbid that there should be people who know what they are! When you get to the desired conclusions of what the Law should "BE" please make sure you send those gems to the NBOs and WBFLC in the proper channels and I assure you they will get full attention. As far as muck-de-mucks are concerned, I find very few in the established structure that are ignorant of the game of bridge, on ego trips, or self serving in their participation. We've got 'em, yes, but I can count them on the fingers of one hand.(OK -- maybe both hands, but feet definitely excluded). For the greatest part they are dedicated individuals who could be making a bundle if they applied their time and efforts to making $$$$. But, enough. Since I don't remember ever being "annointed" with any substance that I care to recall, none of this applies to me, of course. -- Kojak --part1_46.14d71eb7.28358897_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/17/01 8:42:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com
writes:



That the annointed high muckamucks of the NBOs and the WBFLC should allow
the views of a majority of ordinary players to influence their thinking?  
Unimaginable!  What other horrors might such faulty thinking lead to?






Do I detect some sarcasm in this?  Everytime we get going on these threads we
interject comparisons with other games, sports, and whatever else is handy to
"prove" our point.  I find it hard to remain aware that this is a discussion
group where there are no holds barred -- not official at all, --  and which
has an enviable record of finding fault with anything that even slightly
suggests that there is an established way to get an answer, interpretation,
or "reading" of the Law.  Gee I thought there were even such things as
"common Law" "precedence" and "intent." And, God forbid that there should be
people who know what they are! When you get to the desired conclusions of
what the Law should "BE" please make sure you send those gems to the NBOs and
WBFLC in the proper channels and I assure you they will get full attention.
As far as muck-de-mucks are concerned, I find very few in the established
structure that are ignorant of the game of bridge, on ego trips, or self
serving in their participation.  We've got 'em, yes, but I can count them on
the fingers of one hand.(OK -- maybe both hands, but feet definitely
excluded). For the greatest part they are dedicated individuals who could be
making a bundle if they applied their time and efforts to making $$$$. But,
enough. Since I don't remember ever being "annointed" with any substance that
I care to recall, none of this applies to me, of course.
--   Kojak

  --part1_46.14d71eb7.28358897_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 May 18 06:04:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HK4Vh18794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 06:04:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HK4Kt18733 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 06:04:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id d.8.1470e7b4 (18711); Thu, 17 May 2001 16:03:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <8.1470e7b4.28358880@aol.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:03:12 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing To: elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8.1470e7b4.28358880_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_8.1470e7b4.28358880_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Looks to me like everybody is slyly segueing around the FACT that when you regulate that suits are cashed from the top down, it makes absolutely no difference if you forgot a trump was out. When all you got is trumps, you get to pick up the card you forgot about! How 'bout dat?You get LUCKY! Yes, Mrs. Numbskull as well as Mr. Pro. And, isn't it strange that bridge might even continue to retain luck as part of the game -- some rather prominent player/authorities notwithstanding? When we get to actually give the esoteric decisions and approve the convoluted reasoning that I've seen in this thread I hope to be sitting on cloud nine in my private jet and laughing down at all of you (with Cognac in hand, mind you). Gee the footnote isn't even necessary in that case anymore. Unless of course you wish to start misapplying other Laws. Prosit!!! Kojak --part1_8.1470e7b4.28358880_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Looks to me like everybody is slyly segueing around the FACT that when you
regulate that suits are cashed from the top down, it makes absolutely no
difference if you forgot a trump was out.  When all you got is trumps, you
get to pick up the card you forgot about!  How 'bout dat?You get LUCKY! Yes,
Mrs. Numbskull as well as Mr. Pro.  And, isn't it strange that bridge might
even continue to retain luck as part of the game -- some rather prominent
player/authorities notwithstanding? When we get to actually give the  
esoteric decisions and approve the convoluted reasoning that I've seen in
this thread I hope to be sitting on cloud nine in my private jet and laughing
down at all of you (with Cognac in hand, mind you).  Gee the footnote isn't
even necessary in that case anymore.  Unless of course you wish to start
misapplying other Laws.

Prosit!!!   Kojak --part1_8.1470e7b4.28358880_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 May 18 06:21:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HKLh324820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 06:21:43 +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 f4HKLZt24773 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 06:21:35 +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 f4HKL4k17205 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 16:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517160808.00b7bc10@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, 17 May 2001 16:23:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010517103730.007c63b0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517074859.00b93680@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 11:37 AM 5/17/01, Grant wrote: >At 08:04 AM 5/17/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >At 07:28 PM 5/16/01, richard.hills wrote: > > > >But, Richard, having admitted that you might lead low in this position, > >imagine that in some future session you claim the last three tricks > >with your 865, having forgotten that the 7 was out, and the ruling is > >that you are presumed to lead low and lose the last three tricks. In > >the same session, Mrs. Worldclassexpert makes exactly the same claim > >and is awarded the last three tricks, on the grounds that it would be > >irrational for a player of *her* class to start the suit with a low > >card. Would you consider that fair or equitable? Would you think that > >an official interpretation of law that made these both correct rulings > >was good for the game? > > Well, if I admit that I often forget about outstanding trumps >when I claim, and I claim in a case where there's an outstanding trump, >I should certainly expect to be ruled against. OTOH, if a player who >virtually never forgets about an outstanding trump claims in those >circumstances, I wouldn't expect her to be ruled against. How does this >seem unfair? I'm not at all sure that it does. It may be fair; it may not. It is clearly legal (L70C2). But I am quite certain that whether or not it is fair has nothing whatsoever to do with whether she or Grant is overall the better bridge player. 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 May 18 06:53:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HKr8B29792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 06:53:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HKr3t29788 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 06:53:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 13:48:33 -0700 Message-ID: <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517074859.00b93680@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 13:51:57 -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: "David Stevenson" > > Yes, I > believe that allowing for the class of player in claims *is* good for > the game... I'm curious as to how far this opinion extends. If an expert dummy objects to a defensive claim, seeing an advanced declarer play that would invalidate the claim, does it matter that the novice declarer would be very unlikely to find this line? 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 May 18 07:09:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HL9Ft00611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:09:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4HL98t00573 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:09:09 +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 f4HL6p028083 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:06:51 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517081524.00b77a90@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517081524.00b77a90@127.0.0.1> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:00:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eric Landau wrote: >Players have been tapping to pass since before bidding boxes were >invented, indeed, since long before I was born. The fact that the >other three players at the table took the tap to be a pass is >indicative, and by itself sufficient justification for the ruling. In England, where I got into duplicate in 1990, after not having played bridge at all since college (and that was almost entirely rubber - I think I played duplicate once back then) I learned that tapping the table means "alert!" For a while, here, when people tapped the table, I'd ask a puzzled "Yes, please?" and get an equally puzzled look in response. Then, for a while, I'd ask people to put out the pass card, and not to tap the table. They tapped anyway. The only real solution is for teachers, directors, and club owners to teach people not to do it - but that's not going to happen. :-( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOwQ9172UW3au93vOEQJZOgCgpqgHqK7RPQVu9VeNdMlBZFhp5CkAn3AY tAbU68X6PDUbYdpGqRFXMDky =5jnB -----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 May 18 07:09:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HL9rT00623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:09:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HL9kt00619 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:09:47 +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 f4HL9GP74720 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:09:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517163648.00b76330@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, 17 May 2001 17:11:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010517111123.007cda80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:11 PM 5/17/01, Grant wrote: > That's what _I_ think 'equity' means in a bridge hand. And, >contrary to you, that's what _I_ think virtually all bridge players >expect from claims resolution. They expect to get what they would >have gotten had the hand been played out, losing close calls. If >that's what 'equity' means to me and to most bridge players [the latter is >an empirical question, of course], then L70a does, in effect, tell the >TD to 'play the hand out'. If so, then the law hasn't changed since the 1963 edition of TFLB, according to which "he [the TD] should adjudicate the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point should be resolved in favor of the defenders" (L72(e)). The words "any normal play (including the careless or inferior but not the irrational)" were added to TFLB in 1975 (L69C3, slightly paraphrased in L70A2(b)), and have since been refined further (and moved to a footnote). If Grant is correct, it means that the carefully considered (I presume) and much-debated (at least in this forum!) changes in the law since 1963 have been no-ops, and that the footnote in the current edition of TFLB means nothing at all. As to "virtually all bridge players" (although I can only speak to virtually all ordinary ACBL players), they would *like*, when their faulty claims are being adjudicated, to get what *they believe* they would have gotten had the hand been played out. They *expect* to get whatever some TD or AC, who may or may not know them, who may or may not be friends of their opponents, more or less arbitrarily decides they would have gotten had the hand been played out. That's a very different kettle of fish. It's what they expect, but they neither like it nor think the process is fair. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 07:19:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HLJ6R00641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:19:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HLJ0t00637 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:19:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4HLGfK10473; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:10:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! Cc: David Stevenson Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > But in practice when a player taps the table, writes on his score-card >instead of calling, and so on, it is always taken as a pass, and so I >believe this should be. Practically speaking, I agree. Otherwise we have a worse mess. Still, it's very simple to do it right - and tapping isn't right. I suppose, if I were a director, I might be tempted to issue a PP (warning for a first offense, mps or imps for later ones) in cases where tapping causes problems, but I suspect I would be answerable to somebody else (club owner, DIC, Chief TD) who would tell me to knock it off. 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/AwUBOwRAKL2UW3au93vOEQKLtgCeOn7kVAI9/RuYr0KXa3IRU4l2mJAAoLw7 hxSwKQmSMBr6Lo6P2efTf6Gd =Ex4a -----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 May 18 07:29:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HLT6s00656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:29:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HLT0t00652 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:29:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4HLQfK13168 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:26:41 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105171525.LAA12588@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <000401c0dec5$1be219a0$c13467c0@isi.com> <200105171525.LAA12588@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:22:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish ClubEd Reppert [ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >...and promises at least 5-4 in two known suits. Sorry - 2C or 2D >three-suited is legal, but 2H is not at the GCC level. > >http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/gcc.htm , Opening Bids, 3, 5, and 6. > >And I understand the reasoning behind this one - 2D three-suited short in >diamonds is easy to defend, because it will rarely be passed. 2H >three-suited short in diamonds is likely to be passed frequently - and >so is much harder to defend. Definately over the borderline the ACBL >considers GCC-level (which is why, this weekend in my first Mid-Chart >game at a tournament, our 2D multi does *not* have a strong component). Hm. I suppose I should withdraw my thanks to Richard for pointing out that this 2H is GCC legal. :-) On the multi, I'm confused. I remember hearing that "mini-multi" (only a weak two in either major) was GCC legal, and I vaguely remember that I looked it up and saw it was, but the last time I tried to find it, I came to the conclusion it's mid-chart. So which is it? Full multi, with weak and strong options, is mid-chart, isn't it? And a 2D opener with multiple strong options (eg, Mexican, balanced 21-22 or 27-28 or game forcing with diamonds or any game forcing 4441, or Crowhurst's "multi-purpose 2D", any one suited Acol 2 bid, or any Roman 2D) is GCC, right? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOwRCfr2UW3au93vOEQLyggCcDKW5OchlIi0SXI8QRqEc/DH5hlsAnR1Q Y+JUz+rN+VkqG2VjVklPwzDr =8idm -----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 May 18 07:56:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HLsTQ00674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:54:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HLsMt00670 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:54:23 +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 f4HLrp037413 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517175351.00b75340@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, 17 May 2001 17:56:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_37005295==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_37005295==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 04:03 PM 5/17/01, Schoderb wrote: > Looks to me like everybody is slyly segueing around the FACT that when you > regulate that suits are cashed from the top down, it makes absolutely no > difference if you forgot a trump was out. When all you got is trumps, you > get to pick up the card you forgot about! How 'bout dat?You get LUCKY! Yes, > Mrs. Numbskull as well as Mr. Pro. And, isn't it strange that bridge might > even continue to retain luck as part of the game -- some rather prominent > player/authorities notwithstanding? I guess none of those player/authorities subscribe to BLML, since I've seen nothing to suggest that anyone here sees any problem with that. I certainly don't. I do, however, see a problem when Mr. Pro gets *luckier* than than Mrs. Numbskull simply because someone decided that Mr. Pro plays a better game of bridge, as though luck (like rationality?) were somehow correlated with bridge skill. 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 --=====================_37005295==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 04:03 PM 5/17/01, Schoderb wrote:

> Looks to me like everybody is slyly segueing around the FACT that when you
> regulate that suits are cashed from the top down, it makes absolutely no
> difference if you forgot a trump was out.  When all you got is trumps, you
> get to pick up the card you forgot about!  How 'bout dat?You get LUCKY! Yes,
> Mrs. Numbskull as well as Mr. Pro.  And, isn't it strange that bridge might
> even continue to retain luck as part of the game -- some rather prominent
> player/authorities notwithstanding?

I guess none of those player/authorities subscribe to BLML, since I've seen nothing to suggest that anyone here sees any problem with that.  I certainly don't.

I do, however, see a problem when Mr. Pro gets *luckier* than than Mrs. Numbskull simply because someone decided that Mr. Pro plays a better game of bridge, as though luck (like rationality?) were somehow correlated with bridge skill.


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 --=====================_37005295==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 08:27:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HMRAX07766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:27:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HMR3t07727 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:27:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HFcGU01111 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:38:16 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:11:05 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01051715381604.00826@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 17 May 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > From: "David Stevenson" > > > > Yes, I > > believe that allowing for the class of player in claims *is* good > for > > the game... > > I'm curious as to how far this opinion extends. If an expert dummy > objects to a defensive claim, seeing an advanced declarer play that > would invalidate the claim, does it matter that the novice declarer > would be very unlikely to find this line? At least in the ACBL, this has been answered in the Laws Commission notes. This ruling is from the Reno (March 1998) minutes. http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/LawsCommission.htm When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the case of a defender's claim) have the right to inspect their opponent's cards and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can show a line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces more tricks for their side, the director should award them those tricks. The director should not raise objections on behalf of the players involved. Thus, in this case, it is irrelevant whether the superior play would have been likely, or even rational, for the non-claiming side. -- 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 May 18 08:27:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HMRUd07870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:27:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HMRKt07825 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:27:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HFcXf01115 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:38:33 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:11:05 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01051715381604.00826@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 17 May 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > From: "David Stevenson" > > > > Yes, I > > believe that allowing for the class of player in claims *is* good > for > > the game... > > I'm curious as to how far this opinion extends. If an expert dummy > objects to a defensive claim, seeing an advanced declarer play that > would invalidate the claim, does it matter that the novice declarer > would be very unlikely to find this line? At least in the ACBL, this has been answered in the Laws Commission notes. This ruling is from the Reno (March 1998) minutes. http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/LawsCommission.htm When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the case of a defender's claim) have the right to inspect their opponent's cards and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can show a line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces more tricks for their side, the director should award them those tricks. The director should not raise objections on behalf of the players involved. Thus, in this case, it is irrelevant whether the superior play would have been likely, or even rational, for the non-claiming side. -- 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 May 18 08:28:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HMS0k08038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:28:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HMRrt08000 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:27:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HFd6O01119 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:39:06 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:38:28 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01051715381604.00826@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 17 May 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > From: "David Stevenson" > > > > Yes, I > > believe that allowing for the class of player in claims *is* good > for > > the game... > > I'm curious as to how far this opinion extends. If an expert dummy > objects to a defensive claim, seeing an advanced declarer play that > would invalidate the claim, does it matter that the novice declarer > would be very unlikely to find this line? At least in the ACBL, this has been answered in the Laws Commission notes. This ruling is from the Reno (March 1998) minutes. http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/LawsCommission.htm When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the case of a defender's claim) have the right to inspect their opponent's cards and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can show a line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces more tricks for their side, the director should award them those tricks. The director should not raise objections on behalf of the players involved. Thus, in this case, it is irrelevant whether the superior play would have been likely, or even rational, for the non-claiming side. -- 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 May 18 08:35:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HMZLx10559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:35:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HMZDt10513 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:35:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HFkRA01130 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:46:27 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: [BLML] ACBL position on class of player and claim Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:41:20 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01051715462707.00826@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I found an ACBL Laws Commission (semi-)ruling on the situation of a claim omitting a safety play. This is from the Cincinnati (March 2000) minutes. A discussion was held concerning when and how to apply the part of the footnote to Laws 69, 70, 71 which refers to "the class of player involved." No consensus was reached except that there was some feeling that it should make a difference if all players at the table were expert level rather than just one pair or player. For example, in the case of AKT9 opposite Q8xx, if an expert claimed against non-experts without stating a line of play, no consideration should be given that the expert would play the Ace or King first. However, in an all expert game, consideration should be given. This suggests that if none of the four players at the table would consider a play, it is irrational, but if the non-claiming players would consider it, the expert needs to be explain that he would not make the play in the claim statement. -- 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 May 18 08:53:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HMq7S11089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:52:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HMq0t11085 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:52:01 +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 PAA15293; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:51:29 -0700 Message-Id: <200105172251.PAA15293@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish ClubEd Reppert [ereppert@rochester.rr.com] In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 May 2001 17:22:01 EDT." Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:51:28 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > >...and promises at least 5-4 in two known suits. Sorry - 2C or 2D > >three-suited is legal, but 2H is not at the GCC level. > > > >http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/gcc.htm , Opening Bids, 3, 5, and 6. > > > >And I understand the reasoning behind this one - 2D three-suited short in > >diamonds is easy to defend, because it will rarely be passed. 2H > >three-suited short in diamonds is likely to be passed frequently - and > >so is much harder to defend. Definately over the borderline the ACBL > >considers GCC-level (which is why, this weekend in my first Mid-Chart > >game at a tournament, our 2D multi does *not* have a strong component). > > Hm. I suppose I should withdraw my thanks to Richard for pointing out > that this 2H is GCC legal. :-) > > On the multi, I'm confused. I remember hearing that "mini-multi" > (only a weak two in either major) was GCC legal, and I vaguely > remember that I looked it up and saw it was, but the last time I > tried to find it, I came to the conclusion it's mid-chart. So which > is it? Full multi, with weak and strong options, is mid-chart, isn't > it? And a 2D opener with multiple strong options (eg, Mexican, > balanced 21-22 or 27-28 or game forcing with diamonds or any game > forcing 4441, or Crowhurst's "multi-purpose 2D", any one suited Acol > 2 bid, or any Roman 2D) is GCC, right? I believe you're right. The current wording on the ACBL web site is: 5. Opening 2D showing a weak two-bid in an unspecified major and may include additional strong (15+ HCP) meaning(s). Thus, to be covered by this clause, a Multi 2D *may* include some strong meanings but doesn't have to. Thus, 2D that simply shows a weak 2 in either major is still covered here. It's certainly not on the GCC. I've stared at the parenthesized clause in the post you quoted for a few minutes now, and I have no idea what it means. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 09:09:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HN8L611110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 09:08:22 +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 f4HN8Ft11106 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 09:08:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (eiuts90.eiu.edu [139.67.16.90]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA08789; Thu, 17 May 2001 18:07:56 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010517175152.007b4c90@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:51:52 -0500 To: Schoderb@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: Schoderb@aol.com X-PH: V4.4@ux1 Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:51:05 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing To: cfgcs@eiu.edu, dburn@btinternet.com, Schoderb@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 In a message dated 5/17/01 11:19:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cfgcs@eiu.edu writes: . For example, how many ACBL directors not on this list figured out to look in the tech files on their scoring program to discover that the ACBL says that in disputed claims suits are cashed from the top? Lots of food for thought in your response, however the above is something I'd be willing to take a bet on -- even after almost 3 years out of the mainstream of ACBL TDs. I think you are misinformed as to the quality of TDs in ACBL, particularly when it comes to those that go to the NABCs. If I'm wrong then ACBL needs to up the ante on education, but I think Gary Blaiss will agree with me that you are wrong here. Kojak I do not disagree with you _particularly when it comes to the quality of TDs at the NABC level_. In fact, things seem pretty good even at the level of larger tournaments. {For that matter, I'm not commenting on the _quality_ of any TDs, per se.} What I really had in mind is the club level. If players consistently see TDs at clubs ruling a certain way based on certain principles, and then encounter significantly different principles at (especially higher-level) tournaments, the result is not good for bridge. I think the ACBL could do a far better job communicating law changes and law interpretations to the club directors, at very little cost. If they did, I think it would be very good for bridge, and very good for the reputation of the ACBL and their directors. 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 May 18 09:09:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HN8dr11121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 09:08:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HN8St11114 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 09:08:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (eiuts90.eiu.edu [139.67.16.90]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA08792; Thu, 17 May 2001 18:07:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010517175649.007b7250@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:56:49 -0500 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517154758.00abd100@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20010517103058.007dc100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010517102912.00b727f0@127.0.0.1> <3B038883.93EF5E22@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010515143357.0082f6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B02443C.196BC673@village.uunet.be> <004201c0de66$79889ac0$69357ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:58 PM 5/17/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 11:30 AM 5/17/01, Grant wrote: > >>At 10:56 AM 5/17/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >> >That can't be right. TFLB says we must consider inferior lines but >> >must not consider irrational ones. But Herman says that if he is >> >convinced that some lines are clearly inferior he will rule that they >> >are irrational. Doesn't that contradict prima facie exactly the >> >distinction the law tells us to make? >I have described Herman's position as: For a good enough player, line >X is irrational. No. You described Herman's position as "if a line is inferior then it is irrational to follow it", contradicting the footnote. >Grant has described Herman's position as: For a player good enough to >know that line X is inferior, it is irrational for him to follow it. > >I fail to appreciate any practical distinction between these >formulations; I cannot conceive of a scenario in which accepting one >them rather than the other would make a difference in a ruling. You are correct, as far as I can see--there is no significant difference between Herman's position as you state it now and his position as I stated it. Neither of them contradicts the footnote, or breaks down the distinction between inferior lines and lines it would be irrational to follow. There is a difference between a line that is, in fact, inferior and a line that player X would have obviously seen to be inferior. >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Respecfully, 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 Fri May 18 09:09:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4HN8dv11122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 09:08:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4HN8St11113 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 09:08:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (eiuts90.eiu.edu [139.67.16.90]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA08818; Thu, 17 May 2001 18:08:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010517180757.007b94d0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 18:07:57 -0500 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517163648.00b76330@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20010517111123.007cda80@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 05:11 PM 5/17/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 12:11 PM 5/17/01, Grant wrote: > >> That's what _I_ think 'equity' means in a bridge hand. And, >>contrary to you, that's what _I_ think virtually all bridge players >>expect from claims resolution. They expect to get what they would >>have gotten had the hand been played out, losing close calls. If >>that's what 'equity' means to me and to most bridge players [the latter is >>an empirical question, of course], then L70a does, in effect, tell the >>TD to 'play the hand out'. > >If so, then the law hasn't changed since the 1963 edition of TFLB, >according to which "he [the TD] should adjudicate the result of the >board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point >should be resolved in favor of the defenders" (L72(e)). The words "any >normal play (including the careless or inferior but not the >irrational)" were added to TFLB in 1975 (L69C3, slightly paraphrased in >L70A2(b)), and have since been refined further (and moved to a >footnote). If Grant is correct, it means that the carefully considered >(I presume) and much-debated (at least in this forum!) changes in the >law since 1963 have been no-ops, and that the footnote in the current >edition of TFLB means nothing at all. Not at all. The changes are exactly the sort of changes we both think there should be more of--attempts to clarify the meaning of the laws. What the footnote tells us is that when we are resolving doubtful points in favor of the defenders {well, "the non-claimers" would be better} we are to consider lines that are careless or inferior for this player, but not ones that are irrational. This helps explain what 'doubtful points' was supposed to mean, and how we resolve them. I see no reason to think that it was intended to mean that in resolving a claim we _no longer attempt to do equity while resolving doubtful points in favor of the non-claimers_, but now follow some different procedure instead! So "no", I don't think the changes were a _change in the laws_, but were a clarification of them. If they were a change, then they now contradict L70a! >As to "virtually all bridge players" (although I can only speak to >virtually all ordinary ACBL players), they would *like*, when their >faulty claims are being adjudicated, to get what *they believe* they >would have gotten had the hand been played out. They *expect* to get OK, fine. I assume you will admit that your proposal reduces the chance of this. :) >whatever some TD or AC, who may or may not know them, who may or may >not be friends of their opponents, more or less arbitrarily decides >they would have gotten had the hand been played out. That's a very >different kettle of fish. It's what they expect, but they neither like >it nor think the process is fair. Again, I haven't experienced this attitude, but it may be there. The only people I've met who say this say it about everything [UI, MI, etc.], so claim law has nothing to do with it. But, again, if that's what they really think I can see why you want a change. >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 10:02:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4I01uw18441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 10:01:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4I01nt18437 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 10:01:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-192.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.192]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id AF19FF82CC for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 01:01:17 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 00:57:57 +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: <3B00FE82.F60ABF4F@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Herman De Wael (Tue 15 May 2001 11:02)writes: >>Brambledown wrote: >> You OTOH seem to regard the stated line as a sort of 'statement >> of intent' which as TD you feel free to amend if you are convinced >> that, during the course of playing it, he would have come up >> with a better line. > >Isn't that what the laws say "unless to not do so would be >irrational?". > >We all agree that a player is allowed to overruff when >suddenly a trick is ruffed by an outstanding forgotten >trump. Well, this is just an extension of the same idea. The vital difference is that when a card which declarer thought was a winner is ruffed by a 'non-existent' trump it provides a massive 'alarm call' for him. When he is merely running off the winners he has announced he will take, no alarms will ring, and there is no reason to believe he will be thinking about anything other than the mechanics of, for example, leading from the correct hand and naming the correct card. A player who claims believes that, effectively, the hand is over. If he had wanted more time to consider how to play the hand, he would not have claimed. >> I am in no doubt whatsoever that the belgian declarer would make 9 tricks, >> or 10, but never 8. So I award the least of the normal lines, and 9 tricks. It's not relevant to the main argument, but I don't think there is any 'normal' line for 9 tricks. He either plays in accordance with his claim statement and (absent L71) makes 8 tricks, or he 'wakes up' in time and makes at least 10. >I am getting tired of this discussion. Fine. Enough's enough - if you had stopped there, but ....... >I am getting especially tired at the fact that all other sensible >directors out there are not standing by me in telling off >this small band of upstarts who seem to be the majority. >Please others, do tell me that I am not a lunatic. >My blood pressure needs it. I really do not see where this is coming from. I thought the purpose of BLML was to exchange ideas and opinions. If the price of disagreeing with your views in a particular case is to be labelled an upstart, so be it, although it is curious that you think we are in the majority. Presumably, when you and I were of one mind in the 'double revoke' string, I was then one of the 'sensible' directors. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 11:36:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4I1ZMC11513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:35:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4I1ZEt11487 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:35:15 +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 VAA23787 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 21:42:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105180142.VAA23787@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish ClubEd Reppert [ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200105172251.PAA15293@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200105172251.PAA15293@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 21:42:50 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 17 May 2001 at 15:51, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Ed Reppert wrote: > [This is me - mdf:] >> >And I understand the reasoning behind this one - 2D three-suited short in >> >diamonds is easy to defend, because it will rarely be passed. 2H >> >three-suited short in diamonds is likely to be passed frequently - and >> >so is much harder to defend. Definately over the borderline the ACBL >> >considers GCC-level (which is why, this weekend in my first Mid-Chart >> >game at a tournament, our 2D multi does *not* have a strong component). >> >> On the multi, I'm confused. I remember hearing that "mini-multi" >> (only a weak two in either major) was GCC legal, and I vaguely >> remember that I looked it up and saw it was, but the last time I >> tried to find it, I came to the conclusion it's mid-chart. Multi, as far as I know, has never been GCC legal, in any form. It may have been class "D" or whatever when they still did things that way - it's before my time :-). >> So which >> is it? Full multi, with weak and strong options, is mid-chart, isn't >> it? Yep, 2D Multi - with or without strong options - is Mid-Chart. >>And a 2D opener with multiple strong options (eg, Mexican, >> balanced 21-22 or 27-28 or game forcing with diamonds or any game >> forcing 4441, or Crowhurst's "multi-purpose 2D", any one suited Acol >> 2 bid, or any Roman 2D) is GCC, right? > 2D can be a strong hand - I would expect any strong hand, or combination of strong hands would be fine. I'm not sure about Crowhurst's - 2D, at the GCC level can not be "a strong hand *or* a three-suiter, min 10HCP" - it can be only one of those meanings (or min 10HCP, 5-4 in known suits). If the Roman is strong, it should be ok. >I've stared at the parenthesized clause in the post you quoted for a >few minutes now, and I have no idea what it means. > That one's mine - and I will admit I skipped a step. What I meant was that the GCC seems to be designed to disallow any multiple-meaning openers (except for 1C and 1D, but they don't go out of their way to tell you that) or opening bids that are conventional *and frequently passed*. Which is why Precision 2D is GCC-legal, because it's unlikely to be passsed, but if the same meaning is given to 2H, it's Mid-Chart (because it's likely to be passed). It is harder to defend. And that is why my multi is going to have no strong meanings - so that it has a not-infrequent pass rate (incidentally, why the EBU mandates a not-infrequent strong option at the lower levels where Multi 2D is allowed, likely - to avoid 2D-p-p-p auctions). It's harder to defend :-). Of course, since our bidding system is such that our *good* weak 2s are most people's *bad* weak 2s, it's likely worth passing 2D on KTxxxx. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 15:51:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4I5p9B22233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:51:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4I5p2t22202 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:51:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:46:21 -0700 Message-ID: <004d01c0df5e$638738a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:49:18 -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 Grabiner > On Thu, 17 May 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > > From: "David Stevenson" > > > > > > Yes, I > > > believe that allowing for the class of player in claims *is* good > > for > > > the game... > > > > I'm curious as to how far this opinion extends. If an expert dummy > > objects to a defensive claim, seeing an advanced declarer play that > > would invalidate the claim, does it matter that the novice declarer > > would be very unlikely to find this line? > > At least in the ACBL, this has been answered in the Laws Commission > notes. > > This ruling is from the Reno (March 1998) minutes. > > http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/LawsCommission.htm > > When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the > case of a defender's claim) have the right to inspect their opponent's > cards and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can > show a line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces > more tricks for their side, the director should award them those > tricks. The director should not raise objections on behalf of the > players involved. > > Thus, in this case, it is irrelevant whether the superior play would > have been likely, or even rational, for the non-claiming side. > Yes, and the LCs words are a reasonable clarification of what the claim laws say. A pair can confer on a line of play, and the ability of either partner to actually execute the line is not pertinent. There is no allowance for the class of player involved. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 17:22:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4I7M0t24011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 17:22:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4I7Lrt23974 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 17:21:54 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA30598; Fri, 18 May 2001 09:21:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri May 18 09:20:44 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 <01K3PD22NYF8006QAK@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 18 May 2001 09:20:48 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 09:19:50 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:20:46 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , David Burn , Schoderb@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B860@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 > BTW, I'm a member of the belgian national AC for Duplicate > Scrabble, and I > can tell you we have as much problems as to what should be > allowed or not > (ask a Duplicate player about linking letters). > > Regards, > > alain. Thank you Alain, yes we live in a terrible complicated world and I don't succeed to let David Burn nor some of my LC collegues understand that reality can not be restricted to written models (laws for example)in such a way that working with such a model covers all problems happening in that reality. We are working hard to let computers take over mankind for example. Yearly conversation games with hidden computers trying to discover whether you are talking to a computer or a human being. When we have succeeded a small girl somewhere will ask why we wanted it, since we have build a human being and we had those already. Bridge is a very complicated game and it is simply impossible to cover all crazy irregularities by law. We need guidelines and sensible people to apply those. And sensibility is precious in our world. If computers could help us with that quality (?), but that is still not their strongest ability. Let us work on it. Oh yes, not made up, happened 2 weeks ago and I didn't prepare the board. A7 5 5 AKQJ873 KQJ10632 A5 A62 954 The pair enjoyed bidding up to 7NT and after the lead with he SK west counted his tricks and claimed saying 7 heart tricks, 7 diamond tricks and 2 aces. Then south put down 109642 in hearts: 1 down. 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 May 18 18:37:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4I8afQ29778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 18:36:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4I8aVt29769 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 18:36:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4I8a0227116 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 May 2001 09:36:00 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:36 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL position on class of player and claim 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: <01051715462707.00826@psa836> David Grabiner wrote: > I found an ACBL Laws Commission (semi-)ruling on the situation of a > claim omitting a safety play. > > This is from the Cincinnati (March 2000) minutes. > > A discussion was held concerning when and how to apply the part of the > footnote to Laws 69, 70, 71 which refers to "the class of player > involved." No consensus was reached except that there was some feeling > that it should make a difference if all players at the table were > expert level rather than just one pair or player. For example, in the > case of AKT9 opposite Q8xx, if an expert claimed against non-experts > without stating a line of play, no consideration should be given that > the expert would play the Ace or King first. However, in an all expert > game, consideration should be given. > > This suggests that if none of the four players at the table would > consider a play, it is irrational, but if the non-claiming players > would consider it, the expert needs to be explain that he would not > make the play in the claim statement. I think the reasoning would be along the lines of "An expert playing with experts would not deem it necessary to mention the safety play so one would assume he just didn't mention it. An expert playing with non-experts should realise that they may not be familiar with the position and one might assume he had not, in this instance, noticed that the safety play would be necessary." 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 May 18 18:37:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4I8afk29777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 18:36:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4I8aVt29768 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 18:36:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4I8ZxU27103 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 May 2001 09:35:59 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:35 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] claiming out of turn 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: <004201c0de66$79889ac0$69357ad5@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > Herman wrote: > > > When both lines are "normal", and one is "inferior", can we > > not agree that, _if it is absolutely certain that claimer > > will notice both lines, and that he can easily work out the > > difference between them_, that it is "irrational" for him to > > choose the risky line in team play ? > > > > I have re-emphasised the important bit "if it is certain > > that he notices both and if it is easy to work out the > > difference, then it becomes irrational to choose the > > inferior line". > > Well, this principle might apply in the Belgian Claim case. But it would > be pretty useless as a principle to guide directors and ACs in all > cases. Suppose I play a no trump slam in which I require four tricks > from this spade suit (all other suits being doubly stopped): > > A432 > > Q10987 > > but owing to circumstances beyond my control (viz: the bar being open) I > think that I have the king of spades instead of the queen. I table my > cards and announce that I will play spades safely for one loser, and > claim my twelve tricks. (Note: this kind of claim happens all the time > in the £100 game at TGR's, where time is money.) And Michael Courtney will say, politely and without a hint of sarcasm* "How fascinating David, I didn't know there was a safety play for that combination, you must show me - play on". You will play on burdened by the knowledge that any line you adopt that requires a particular card to be held by one defender will fail. One off. *for those who don't know Michael is barely capable of saying "hello" without sounding sarcastic. > Now, it is quite easy for me to notice that I could play: > > ace and another spade; > or low to the queen and then cash the ace; > or low to the queen and then run the ten; > or low to the ten and then cash the ace; > or low to the ten and then run the queen; > or run the queen and then cash the ace; > or run the queen and then run the ten; > or run the ten and then cash the ace; > or run the ten and then run the queen. > > It is also quite easy for me to work out the different chances of > success for each of these lines. Would it be "irrational" for me to > follow one of the inferior ones? (Note for those not familiar with > percentage plays: the correct technical line is ace and another, but if > RHO is not of the very highest calibre, the best practical shot is low > to the ten and then run the queen.) Working from Herman's principle, which I really like, I think we can apply a sensible ruling at duplicate. All the lines you suggest are plausible "at the table" plays and none are massively inferior to the others (I think). Make the last line "It is irrational for him to choose a *significantly inferior* line in team play ?" If we build around this to say "Any line which may fail is significantly inferior to a 100% shot". "If two alternative lines exist it would be irrational to adopt a 35% line when a 65% line is available". 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 May 18 22:10:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IC9ou25251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 22:09:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IC9Zt25183 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 22:09:36 +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 150j41-0002Ez-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 May 2001 13:09:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 01:37:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517074859.00b93680@127.0.0.1> <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001601c0df13$405bbae0$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" >> >> Yes, I >> believe that allowing for the class of player in claims *is* good >for >> the game... > >I'm curious as to how far this opinion extends. If an expert dummy >objects to a defensive claim, seeing an advanced declarer play that >would invalidate the claim, does it matter that the novice declarer >would be very unlikely to find this line? Yes, it matters. I suggest dummy would do better to shut up and see if his partner notices. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 22:10:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IC9oq25257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 22:09:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IC9Zt25184 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 22:09:36 +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 150j41-0002F1-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 May 2001 13:09:04 +0100 Message-ID: <6J+vTYAjDHB7EwKo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 01:46:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes > >> But in practice when a player taps the table, writes on his score-card >>instead of calling, and so on, it is always taken as a pass, and so I >>believe this should be. > >Practically speaking, I agree. Otherwise we have a worse mess. Still, >it's very simple to do it right - and tapping isn't right. I suppose, >if I were a director, I might be tempted to issue a PP (warning for a >first offense, mps or imps for later ones) in cases where tapping >causes problems, but I suspect I would be answerable to somebody else >(club owner, DIC, Chief TD) who would tell me to knock it off. When I played at Schipol last year I played about 100 boards. The final pass was made without a pass card on about 80 occasions. What are you suggesting, Ed, that I should have called the Director each time? Allowing for the fact that on about 25 occasions it was me who made the last pass in this way? Anyway, I really hope no-one will think of doing it at Schipol, since I have been invited to direct this year, and I don't want that much aggro! In fact, the Dutch, very sensibly, have addressed the problem by making a ruling on such passes at top level, in effect saying that they are taken as passes. I really do not think it is practical to try to control this practice with PPs - I think you have to accept it. We are trying to run a game here, not conduct a theoretical exercise. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 22:10:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IC9tt25281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 22:09:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IC9Zt25182 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 22:09:35 +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 150j41-0002F0-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 May 2001 13:09:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 01:38:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01051715381604.00826@psa836> In-Reply-To: <01051715381604.00826@psa836> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J Grabiner writes >On Thu, 17 May 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: >> From: "David Stevenson" >> > >> > Yes, I >> > believe that allowing for the class of player in claims *is* good >> for >> > the game... >> >> I'm curious as to how far this opinion extends. If an expert dummy >> objects to a defensive claim, seeing an advanced declarer play that >> would invalidate the claim, does it matter that the novice declarer >> would be very unlikely to find this line? > >At least in the ACBL, this has been answered in the Laws Commission >notes. > >This ruling is from the Reno (March 1998) minutes. > >http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/LawsCommission.htm > > When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the >case of a defender's claim) have the right to inspect their opponent's >cards and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can >show a line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces >more tricks for their side, the director should award them those >tricks. The director should not raise objections on behalf of the >players involved. > >Thus, in this case, it is irrelevant whether the superior play would >have been likely, or even rational, for the non-claiming side. Maybe - but I bet the person who penned the above was not thinking of an objection by dummy. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 18 22:29:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ICSnj29795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 22:28:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4ICSgt29788 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 22:28:42 +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 f4ICS9m88694 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010518082542.00b9a4d0@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, 18 May 2001 08:30:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL position on class of player and claim In-Reply-To: <01051715462707.00826@psa836> References: <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:41 AM 5/17/01, David wrote: >I found an ACBL Laws Commission (semi-)ruling on the situation of a >claim omitting a safety play. > >This is from the Cincinnati (March 2000) minutes. > >A discussion was held concerning when and how to apply the part of the >footnote to Laws 69, 70, 71 which refers to "the class of player >involved." No consensus was reached except that there was some feeling >that it should make a difference if all players at the table were >expert level rather than just one pair or player. For example, in the >case of AKT9 opposite Q8xx, if an expert claimed against non-experts >without stating a line of play, no consideration should be given that >the expert would play the Ace or King first. However, in an all expert >game, consideration should be given. > >This suggests that if none of the four players at the table would >consider a play, it is irrational, but if the non-claiming players >would consider it, the expert needs to be explain that he would not >make the play in the claim statement. Is this a troll? Has the ACBLLC really said that the standard for judging claims varies not only with the level of ability of the claimer but with the level of ability of their opponents as well? Where in TFLB could anyone have found any justification for that? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 01:32:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IFVlj28137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 01:31:47 +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 f4IFVdt28095 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 01:31:39 +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 150mDa-000Kcv-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 May 2001 16:31:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:44:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish ClubEd Reppert [ereppert@rochester.rr.com] References: <200105172251.PAA15293@mailhub.irvine.com> <200105180142.VAA23787@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200105180142.VAA23787@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother writes >Which is why Precision 2D is GCC-legal, because it's unlikely to be >passsed, but if the same meaning is given to 2H, it's Mid-Chart (because >it's likely to be passed). It is harder to defend. And that is why my >multi is going to have no strong meanings - so that it has a >not-infrequent pass rate (incidentally, why the EBU mandates a >not-infrequent strong option at the lower levels where Multi 2D is >allowed, likely - to avoid 2D-p-p-p auctions). It's harder to defend :-). Following that logic the GCC should disallow a Precision 2C opener. It is fairly easy to employ a workable defence against a 2H opening that shows hearts, especially a single range one. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 01:33:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IFWvE28576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 01:32:57 +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 (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4IFWnt28533 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 01:32:50 +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 IAA28732; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:32:18 -0700 Message-Id: <200105181532.IAA28732@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL position on class of player and claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 18 May 2001 08:30:19 EDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20010518082542.00b9a4d0@127.0.0.1> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:32:18 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:41 AM 5/17/01, David wrote: > > >I found an ACBL Laws Commission (semi-)ruling on the situation of a > >claim omitting a safety play. > > > >This is from the Cincinnati (March 2000) minutes. > > > >A discussion was held concerning when and how to apply the part of the > >footnote to Laws 69, 70, 71 which refers to "the class of player > >involved." No consensus was reached except that there was some feeling > >that it should make a difference if all players at the table were > >expert level rather than just one pair or player. For example, in the > >case of AKT9 opposite Q8xx, if an expert claimed against non-experts > >without stating a line of play, no consideration should be given that > >the expert would play the Ace or King first. However, in an all expert > >game, consideration should be given. > > > >This suggests that if none of the four players at the table would > >consider a play, it is irrational, but if the non-claiming players > >would consider it, the expert needs to be explain that he would not > >make the play in the claim statement. > > Is this a troll? Has the ACBLLC really said that the standard for > judging claims varies not only with the level of ability of the claimer > but with the level of ability of their opponents as well? Where in > TFLB could anyone have found any justification for that? I don't think it's a troll. I believe it simply means is that when claimer leaves something out of his statement, when we're making a determination of fact as to whether the claimer clearly intended that as part of his line of play, we can take the opponents' ability level into account when making that determination. This makes sense based on my own experience. Although I've said in the past that my claim statements are usually very brief to nonexistent, I've lately found that that isn't true. In fact, when I'm playing against novices or average players, I tend to instinctively spell things out more so that I can be sure they'll understand what's going on; but when I'm playing against experts or near-experts, I'm more likely to just face my cards and assume that they know how to play bridge. However, once we've made a decision about what the claimer meant to say, and all our questions about whether claimer forgot a key point or simply assumed the opponents would know about it have been answered, then judging a faulty claim should *not* depend on the opponents' ability in any way, IMHO. -- 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 May 19 01:40:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IFeex01460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 01:40:41 +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 f4IFeXt01416 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 01:40:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-189.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.189]) by amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2772E18C60 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 16:04:06 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:00:42 +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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B860@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Kooijman, A. (Fri 18 May 2001 08:21) writes: >Oh yes, not made up, happened 2 weeks ago and I didn't prepare the board. > >A7 5 >5 AKQJ873 >KQJ10632 A5 >A62 954 > >The pair enjoyed bidding up to 7NT and after the SK lead West >counted his tricks and claimed saying 7 heart tricks, 7 diamond >tricks and 2 aces. Then south put down 109642 in hearts: 1 down. Not if the TD is Herman or one of his adherents. They would regard the claim as 'breaking down' as soon as North shows out in hearts or after four rounds of hearts when either the 10 or 9 is still out. Now it would be irrational for declarer not to switch to A and another diamond at trick 6. 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 May 19 01:46:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IFkgC03626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 01:46:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IFkat03583 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 01:46:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:42:04 -0700 Message-ID: <002001c0dfb1$99d8c6a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517074859.00b93680@127.0.0.1> <001601c0df13$405bbae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:45:38 -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: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > > > >From: "David Stevenson" > >> > >> Yes, I > >> believe that allowing for the class of player in claims *is* good > >for > >> the game... > > > >I'm curious as to how far this opinion extends. If an expert dummy > >objects to a defensive claim, seeing an advanced declarer play that > >would invalidate the claim, does it matter that the novice declarer > >would be very unlikely to find this line? > > Yes, it matters. I suggest dummy would do better to shut up and see > if his partner notices. > L68D: "...if it is disputed by any player (dummy included)..." That seems to invite dummy's participation. Defenders obviously may confer on whether to accept a claim, so the lawmakers have given the declaring side the same right. The only consideration given to "class of player involved" for the claimant's opponents is that a pair must see for themselves how a claim breaks down ("the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim"), with no help from the TD other than what L70C/D/E requires. It is written somewhere in ACBL documents that a TD may give a gentle hint to weak players who have not seen an obvious error in an opponent's claim. 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 May 19 02:12:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IGC1i08599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 02:12:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IGBst08558 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 02:11:55 +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 f4IGBL097080; Fri, 18 May 2001 12:11:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010518115608.00ae5ac0@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, 18 May 2001 12:11:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: [BLML] Adjusting for a duplicated deal Cc: Barbara Doran Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following occurred at our unit game last night: Two sections, duplicated boards, across-the-field scoring. The pair that duplicated boards 7-8 from hand records in one of the two sections somehow ignored the hand record for board 7, and produced a board 7 which was actually board 8 turned 180 degrees, reversing the hands. (Board 8 was duplicated correctly.) This was not discovered until round 6, when a declarer called the TD after noticing that his dummy on board 8 was card-for-card identical with the hand he had held on board 7. The ruling at the table seems pretty easy, per L12: Board 8 unplayable, A+ to both sides, subject to L88. What adjustment, if any, should be made to the scores of the 10 pairs who had previously played this set of boards without noticing that they were playing the same board twice with the hands reversed? [FWIW, the TDs at the game threw out board 8 for everyone in that section and scored the sections separately.] 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 May 19 02:30:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IGU8M10989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 02:30:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IGU1t10983 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 02:30:02 +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 JAA29594; Fri, 18 May 2001 09:29:30 -0700 Message-Id: <200105181629.JAA29594@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 18 May 2001 16:00:42 BST." Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:29:30 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chas Fellows wrote: > > Kooijman, A. (Fri 18 May 2001 08:21) writes: > > >Oh yes, not made up, happened 2 weeks ago and I didn't prepare the board. > > > >A7 5 > >5 AKQJ873 > >KQJ10632 A5 > >A62 954 > > > >The pair enjoyed bidding up to 7NT and after the SK lead West > >counted his tricks and claimed saying 7 heart tricks, 7 diamond > >tricks and 2 aces. Then south put down 109642 in hearts: 1 down. > > Not if the TD is Herman or one of his adherents. They would regard the > claim as 'breaking down' as soon as North shows out in hearts or after four > rounds of hearts when either the 10 or 9 is still out. Now it would be > irrational for declarer not to switch to A and another diamond at trick 6. On the other hand, if you don't notice that there's a problem until you cash four rounds of hearts, what's to prevent you from pitching diamonds on the top hearts? Now, when the claim breaks down, it's too late---you only have 10 tricks. On thinking about it, it seems to me that no matter what one's philosophy is when judging claims, "down 1" is the wrong ruling. There are several ways the play could go, and some BLMLers would include or exclude some of them based on there philosophy, but *none* of them lead to down 1. Examples: (1) Declarer starts running the hearts, blithely unaware, even after someone shows out, that they're not running. When he tries to cash the "good" H8, the opponents win and start cashing spades. Down at least 5 depending on the spade position. (Occasionally down fewer if spades are blocked.) (2) Declarer starts running the hearts, but after cashing four rounds, he realizes that the 10 is still out and the hearts aren't good. However, since he didn't realize until trick 6, he could have pitched diamonds on the top hearts. Note that since declarer originally thinks he's going to make six pitches on the hearts, he'll plan to pitch a spade, two clubs, and three diamonds, and it doesn't matter which order he pitches them in---therefore, it's not irrational for him to pitch the small diamonds first. Result: down 3. (3) Declarer starts running the hearts, but as soon as he cashes the top heart, and someone shows out, he realizes that hearts aren't running. At that point, we can assume declarer will follow the only rational line, pitching black cards on the top hearts and then running diamonds. Making 7. But I don't see any way that down 1 can be correct. To do so, you'd have to argue (for instance) that it would be "rational" to pitch one diamond and two black cards on the top hearts, but "irrational" to pitch two or three diamonds. Which of course makes no sense whatsoever. -- 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 May 19 02:32:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IGVv211036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 02:31:57 +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-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 f4IGVmt11027 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 02:31:49 +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 f4IGVH098720 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 12:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010518122357.00ab33c0@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, 18 May 2001 12:31:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B860@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:00 AM 5/18/01, "Brambledown" wrote: > > Kooijman, A. (Fri 18 May 2001 08:21) writes: > > >Oh yes, not made up, happened 2 weeks ago and I didn't prepare the > board. > > > >A7 5 > >5 AKQJ873 > >KQJ10632 A5 > >A62 954 > > > >The pair enjoyed bidding up to 7NT and after the SK lead West > >counted his tricks and claimed saying 7 heart tricks, 7 diamond > >tricks and 2 aces. Then south put down 109642 in hearts: 1 down. > >Not if the TD is Herman or one of his adherents. They would regard the >claim as 'breaking down' as soon as North shows out in hearts or after >four >rounds of hearts when either the 10 or 9 is still out. Now it would be >irrational for declarer not to switch to A and another diamond at trick 6. I am neither Herman nor one of his adherents (at least on the subject of claims), but I confess that until I read Ton's message earlier I would have ruled that way myself. I can only hope that there's enough discussion of this ruling on BLML to come to a consensus, so I'll know how to rule in such situations in the future. 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 May 19 03:02:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IH2UR11754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 03:02:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IH2Jt11748 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 03:02:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.85]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4IH1in26831 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 19:01:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B04F5AC.C6BBD388@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:13:00 +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 out of turn References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517102912.00b727f0@127.0.0.1> <3B038883.93EF5E22@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010515143357.0082f6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B02443C.196BC673@village.uunet.be> <004201c0de66$79889ac0$69357ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010517154758.00abd100@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 When two different people start telling the list what I meant, there is bound to be some confusion. Eric Landau wrote: > > > I have described Herman's position as: For a good enough player, line > X is irrational. > I would prefer it to see written : "For a good enough player, the act of following line X is irrational". > Grant has described Herman's position as: For a player good enough to > know that line X is inferior, it is irrational for him to follow it. > That is better. > I fail to appreciate any practical distinction between these > formulations; Well, a line can be normal, but yet it is irrational to follow it. So in you first formulation, there is a difference. In my amended formulation, there is no distinction. So indeed, if what you intended, Eric, was the second formulation, then there is no distinction between your view and Grant's (well, I'm not certain that they are your respective views, rather your formulations of my point of view). > I cannot conceive of a scenario in which accepting one > them rather than the other would make a difference in a ruling. > Well, not if you interpret "line X is irrational" as "following line X is irrational". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 03:03:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IH2xG11780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 03:02:59 +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-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 f4IH2ht11762 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 03:02:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.85]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4IH2An26898 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 19:02:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B04F8EC.FF90A9A6@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:26:52 +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 out of turn References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: > > > > >We all agree that a player is allowed to overruff when > >suddenly a trick is ruffed by an outstanding forgotten > >trump. Well, this is just an extension of the same idea. > > The vital difference is that when a card which declarer thought was a winner > is ruffed by a 'non-existent' trump it provides a massive 'alarm call' for > him. When he is merely running off the winners he has announced he will > take, no alarms will ring, and there is no reason to believe he will be > thinking about anything other than the mechanics of, for example, leading > from the correct hand and naming the correct card. A player who claims > believes that, effectively, the hand is over. If he had wanted more time > to consider how to play the hand, he would not have claimed. > When considering a bridge hand, there come two moments. One is the "ah" moment, the one when everything is resolved. View-graph commentators often describe this as "declarer leans forward - play is about to end". It is the moment when declarer (or sometimes defender) has noticed that play is finished. And then there is the "working out" moment. It is the realization of this play. It contains the analysis of the play, followed by the execution. That can be by actually playing the cards, or by ordering them in hand and then spreading them, or by siply showing the hand and issueing a complete claims statement. Now sometimes, or in my case, quite often, a player claims between these two moments, i.e. immediately after realizing that play is effectively over, but before working out the actual play. That is when sometimes it goes wrong. Now you may say that he should not claim at this moment, but that won't help us. He has claimed, and we need to rule on it. Now as to your alarm bell. It is IMO clear that when we have established that a player has claimed BEFORE working out the actual play, that we should allow him, in our "fictitious" play that we shall ascribe to him, to begin with such an analysis. It is then that the alarm bells will sound. Can you not see that this Belgian player did not work out how he should play if they return a spade ? Can you imagine that he would have claimed if he had looked at this problem ? Do you think he is as stupid as to not analyse the play before playing a second card from dummy ? Do you really believe that a player who claims before doing the analysis would not do the analysis when playing ? OK, we should not allow him a very careful analysis, and we should rule doubtful points against him. But can you be in any doubt whatsoever that he will fail to notice the blockage before calling for a second card from dummy ? I really cannot make it any clearer than this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 03:03:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IH31b11782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 03:03:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IH2kt11765 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 03:02:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.85]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4IH2En26912 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 19:02:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B050013.EBFE6775@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:57:23 +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] More faulty directing References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B860@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: > > > Oh yes, not made up, happened 2 weeks ago and I didn't prepare the board. > > A7 5 > 5 AKQJ873 > KQJ10632 A5 > A62 954 > > The pair enjoyed bidding up to 7NT and after the lead with he SK west > counted his tricks and claimed saying 7 heart tricks, 7 diamond tricks and 2 > aces. Then south put down 109642 in hearts: 1 down. > Did you really rule it that way ? 7 diamonds, 4 hearts and 2 aces is still 13 I believe. What did you consider to be "careless" ? Not noticing that the hearts can be 5-0 ? Surely. Not noticing that they were ? More difficult. I cannot imagine a line of play by which the diamonds can be left unattainable after the hearts show out. I believe this is one of those cases where claimer has had his "oh" moment but not yet his "analysis". I award 13 tricks. Surely several others do as well. Please speak up, unless you really want the lurkers to believe that one down is the correct ruling here. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 04:27:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IIQcZ15455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 04:26:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f62.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4IIQVt15409 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 04:26:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:25:55 -0700 Received: from 172.135.181.108 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2001 18:25:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.135.181.108] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL position on class of player and claim Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:25:55 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2001 18:25:55.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA4EFB60:01C0DFC7] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL position on class of player and claim >Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:30:19 -0400 > >At 11:41 AM 5/17/01, David wrote: > >>I found an ACBL Laws Commission (semi-)ruling on the situation of a >>claim omitting a safety play. >> >>This is from the Cincinnati (March 2000) minutes. >> >>A discussion was held concerning when and how to apply the part of the >>footnote to Laws 69, 70, 71 which refers to "the class of player >>involved." No consensus was reached except that there was some feeling >>that it should make a difference if all players at the table were >>expert level rather than just one pair or player. For example, in the >>case of AKT9 opposite Q8xx, if an expert claimed against non-experts >>without stating a line of play, no consideration should be given that >>the expert would play the Ace or King first. However, in an all expert >>game, consideration should be given. >> >>This suggests that if none of the four players at the table would >>consider a play, it is irrational, but if the non-claiming players >>would consider it, the expert needs to be explain that he would not >>make the play in the claim statement. > >Is this a troll? Has the ACBLLC really said that the standard for >judging claims varies not only with the level of ability of the claimer >but with the level of ability of their opponents as well? Where in >TFLB could anyone have found any justification for that? The ACBLLC, who I imagine have some clout in changing TFLB, didn't reach a concensus, so you are relatively safe. Practically, it's sensible to adjust your claims as though this rule were in effect. The likelyhood the director will get called or that I'll have to explain the line of play in great length, thus wasting time, sometimes affects when and how I claim. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 05:35:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IJYge04918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 05:34:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IJYSt04903 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 05:34:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4qk.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.84]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA32273; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:33:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006801c0dfd1$fad9f1c0$5413f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B860@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <4.3.2.7.1.20010518122357.00ab33c0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:37:16 -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 am astounded there is any doubt that this is 7N=. It would be irrational not to see that north was void in hearts. One would have to suppose a rank novice to declare down one the result of merely careless or inferior play. I am with Herman on this one. And I'd be sorely tempted to assess a PP to the BLing opps who wasted my time...and if they appealed would keep the deposit and revoke their bar privileges. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 12:31 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing > At 11:00 AM 5/18/01, "Brambledown" wrote: > > > > Kooijman, A. (Fri 18 May 2001 08:21) writes: > > > > >Oh yes, not made up, happened 2 weeks ago and I didn't prepare the > > board. > > > > > >A7 5 > > >5 AKQJ873 > > >KQJ10632 A5 > > >A62 954 > > > > > >The pair enjoyed bidding up to 7NT and after the SK lead West > > >counted his tricks and claimed saying 7 heart tricks, 7 diamond > > >tricks and 2 aces. Then south put down 109642 in hearts: 1 down. > > > >Not if the TD is Herman or one of his adherents. They would regard the > >claim as 'breaking down' as soon as North shows out in hearts or after > >four > >rounds of hearts when either the 10 or 9 is still out. Now it would be > >irrational for declarer not to switch to A and another diamond at trick 6. > > I am neither Herman nor one of his adherents (at least on the subject > of claims), but I confess that until I read Ton's message earlier I > would have ruled that way myself. I can only hope that there's enough > discussion of this ruling on BLML to come to a consensus, so I'll know > how to rule in such situations in the future. > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 06:18:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IKILg14320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:18:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4IKI0t14296 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:18:01 +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 f4IKFQ026502; Fri, 18 May 2001 16:15:27 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105172251.PAA15293@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200105172251.PAA15293@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:08:38 -0400 To: Adam Beneschan From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish ClubEd Reppert [ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I've stared at the parenthesized clause in the post you quoted for a >few minutes now, and I have no idea what it means. Both the Mexican 2D opening, and Crowhurst's "multi-purpose" 2D opening have multiple possible meanings, all of which are strong. I *think* that the wording in the GCC, which if I remember correctly is, under permitted openings, "2D opening showing any strong hand", means that a 2D opening with multiple meanings is GCC legal, provided all the meanings are strong. The parenthetical expression was intended to provide examples of 2D openings with multiple strong meanings. Is that any clearer? :-) 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/AwUBOwWDVL2UW3au93vOEQINSwCcCL/8EDc6iO26Jmel2bGrb9R6/HcAmwZo yrwH92dEZVmD4eV99FYjSSJg =LA92 -----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 May 19 06:18:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IKIBp14309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:18:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-1.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 f4IKI0t14295 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:18:01 +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 f4IKFb026568 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 16:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010517175152.007b4c90@eiu.edu> References: <3.0.6.32.20010517175152.007b4c90@eiu.edu> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:13:11 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:51 PM -0500 5/17/01, Grant Sterling wrote: >I think the ACBL could do a far better job communicating law changes >and law interpretations to the club directors, at very little cost. If they >did, I think it would be very good for bridge, and very good for the >reputation >of the ACBL and their directors. Not just club directors. Some of us players are interested in the laws and the ACBL's interpretations of them - not to mention regulations. When the ACBL publishes such information in a medium not available to the average player (ACBLScore is $50 to club TDs, $150 to others - and I ain't payin' $150 for it) it does players a disservice. How the heck are we supposed to know what the laws are if they keep it a secret? 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/AwUBOwWDWr2UW3au93vOEQKt6QCg1TCeUJjC+vy+Qnxeg9jwniyvqsYAn2gl wz/x074YLANwvWY7tGnMrY0i =hFm3 -----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 May 19 06:27:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IKRRX14797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:27:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4IKRNt14793 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:27:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.8] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010518202647.KMYR699.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 08:26:47 +1200 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" CC: Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 20:26:45 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010518202647.KMYR699.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Craig Senior" > Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:37:16 -0400 > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , > "Eric Landau" > Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing > > I am astounded there is any doubt that this is 7N=. It would be > irrational not to see that north was void in hearts. Maybe in a perfect world. In reality it would be careless. I am sure that we have all at times not noticed a player show out. > One would > have to suppose a rank novice to declare down one the result of > merely careless or inferior play. I am with Herman on this one. > And I'd be sorely tempted to assess a PP to the BLing opps who > wasted my time...and if they appealed would keep the deposit and > revoke their bar privileges. > And I am equally abhorred by the sloppy claim and the attitude of those who want all possible tricks after such a claim. This claimer would have done a better job of convincing me that she or he was a more careful player if the possible adverse heart break had been mentioned in the claim. > Craig > Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 06:28:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IKSB414849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:28:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4IKS3t14838 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:28:03 +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 f4IKPW000732; Fri, 18 May 2001 16:25:38 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105180142.VAA23787@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <200105172251.PAA15293@mailhub.irvine.com> <200105180142.VAA23787@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:21:17 -0400 To: blml@farebrother.cx From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish ClubEd Reppert [ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:42 PM -0400 5/17/01, Michael Farebrother wrote: >I'm not sure about Crowhurst's - 2D, at the GCC level can not be "a >strong hand *or* a three-suiter, min 10HCP" - it can be only one of >those meanings (or min 10HCP, 5-4 in known suits). If the Roman is >strong, it should be ok. Who said anything about "min 10HCP"? :-) Crowhurst described, in 1976, I think it was, the 3 suited meaning as "Roman" (not "mini Roman") and went on to say that it shows something like 16-22 HCP. So I guess that's strong. 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/AwUBOwWFsb2UW3au93vOEQKDoQCfbcdN9ANfJE+meUqu+oi90EvRWPQAoPar NtSJNMaHO/MZVxpSp+bPrQZb =lrJw -----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 May 19 06:39:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IKcTY17841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:38:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IKcKt17794 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:38:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4IKZnd24474; Fri, 18 May 2001 16:35:50 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105181629.JAA29594@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200105181629.JAA29594@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:33:32 -0400 To: Adam Beneschan From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Cc: "BLML" , adam@irvine.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:29 AM -0700 5/18/01, Adam Beneschan wrote: >On the other hand, if you don't notice that there's a problem until >you cash four rounds of hearts, what's to prevent you from pitching >diamonds on the top hearts? Now, when the claim breaks down, it's too >late---you only have 10 tricks. You're asking declarer not to notice one opponent is void in hearts until his *fourth* discard. I suspect most will notice on the first. 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/AwUBOwWIGL2UW3au93vOEQIH7ACeOHCwopGjDMO7u233fQ96BIbK2p8Aniy6 Qp88V35zafzinuWt6dlidfSB =QA0+ -----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 May 19 06:40:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IKeAI18456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:40:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IKe2t18419 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:40:03 +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 HDCG0RLP; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:39:29 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:48:33 -0500 To: BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: [BLML] Re: What Beginners Do Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well, I don't know what beginners do, but last night I was trying to make 4 clubs, and I had it in hand, except I forgot a trump was out and did not play my high queen of trumps before trying to cash my five diamond winners (miscounted trumps from from trick 0.) I went down three for zero matchpoints. Of course, I've only been playing(?) duplicate for 28 years. Maybe I can advance to the beginner level next year. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 06:49:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IKn1L21696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:49:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from midntprod03.minfod.com (al194.minfod.com [207.227.70.194] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4IKmpt21640 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 06:48:53 +1000 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 16:02:20 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CCE@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:02:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Everyone starts with the Queen 4 tricks to declarer -----Original Message----- From: Tony Musgrove To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sent: 5/16/01 1:30 AM Subject: [BLML] More faulty directing I promised to submit the following for judgement: North -- -- Q 10 9 8 -- East x xx J x Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer states the rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about the outstanding J. I state that 3/4 of the time she will lose a trick to the J, and 1/4 of the time she will play the Q and take all tricks, so I award 3/4 of MPs for 5D going off 1, and 1/4 of the MPs for 5D making. Both sides are happy. The only problem is that Australian directors are not yet allowed to rule using 12C3 (I don't think). Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 07:49:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ILmIc26783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 07:48:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4ILm4t26767 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 07:48:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.120.107.89] (helo=host213-120-107-89.btopenworld.com) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 150s5r-00056L-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 May 2001 22:47:31 +0100 From: pam To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: What Beginners Do Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 22:47:03 +0100 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 f4ILmBt26774 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 May 2001 15:48:33 -0500, Robert wrote: >Well, I don't know what beginners do, but last night I was trying to make 4 >clubs, and I had it in hand, except I forgot a trump was out and did not >play my high queen of trumps before trying to cash my five diamond winners >(miscounted trumps from from trick 0.) I went down three for zero >matchpoints. Of course, I've only been playing(?) duplicate for 28 years. >Maybe I can advance to the beginner level next year. I guess the lesson here is claim fast and hope Herman or Grant is directing :) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 08:26:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IMPot29035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 08:25:50 +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 f4IMPdt28984 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 08:25:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-8.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.8]) by hatfield.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1DD6322E08D for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 23:25:06 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 23:21:40 +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: <200105181629.JAA29594@mailhub.irvine.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Adam Beneschan (Fri 18 May 2001 17:30) writes: >> Chas Fellows wrote: >>> Kooijman, A. (Fri 18 May 2001 08:21) writes: >>> >>> Oh yes, not made up, happened 2 weeks ago and I didn't prepare >>> the board. >>> A7 5 >>> 5 AKQJ873 >>> KQJ10632 A5 >>> A62 954 >>> The pair enjoyed bidding up to 7NT and after the SK lead West >>> counted his tricks and claimed saying 7 heart tricks, 7 diamond >>> tricks and 2 aces. Then south put down 109642 in hearts: 1 down. >> >> Not if the TD is Herman or one of his adherents. They would regard >> the claim as 'breaking down' as soon as North shows out in hearts >> or after four rounds of hearts when either the 10 or 9 is still out. >> Now it would be irrational for declarer not to switch to A and >> another diamond at trick 6. > > On the other hand, if you don't notice that there's a problem until > you cash four rounds of hearts, what's to prevent you from pitching > diamonds on the top hearts? Now, when the claim breaks down, it's > too late---you only have 10 tricks. Declarer has also claimed seven diamond tricks - it would hardly be consistent with that statement to pitch winning diamonds in preference to the three losing black cards. I know he expects initially to have to find three more discards, but I still think he would instinctively throw the losers first. You could also argue that he may discard the black aces, but that is not what players do. 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 May 19 08:34:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IMY0n02067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 08:34:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IMXnt02011 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 08:33:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IFj1b00785; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:45:01 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Adjusting for a duplicated deal Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:34:26 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Barbara Doran References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010518115608.00ae5ac0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010518115608.00ae5ac0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01051815450104.00504@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 May 2001, Eric Landau wrote: > The following occurred at our unit game last night: > > Two sections, duplicated boards, across-the-field scoring. > > The pair that duplicated boards 7-8 from hand records in one of the two > sections somehow ignored the hand record for board 7, and produced a > board 7 which was actually board 8 turned 180 degrees, reversing the > hands. (Board 8 was duplicated correctly.) This was not discovered > until round 6, when a declarer called the TD after noticing that his > dummy on board 8 was card-for-card identical with the hand he had held > on board 7. > > The ruling at the table seems pretty easy, per L12: Board 8 > unplayable, A+ to both sides, subject to L88. > > What adjustment, if any, should be made to the scores of the 10 pairs > who had previously played this set of boards without noticing that they > were playing the same board twice with the hands reversed? L6B2 is the law intended for this situation, but it says explicitly that it applies only when the hand had been played before in a previous session, and this hand was played before in the same session. So the director should rule under L12A2: Normal play of board 8 is impossible (since the players might remember the distribution), and it should be re-scored as average-plus to both sides at all tables which have already played it. Now correct board 7, and score board 7 as a fouled board, while scoring board 8 normally for everyone who could play it fairly. And a full board procedural penalty to the pairs who misduplicated board 7, as they fouled board 7 (half a board) and caused several other pairs to take an adjusted score on board 8 (half a board). -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 08:40:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IMdqJ04186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 08:39:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4IMdht04142 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 08:39:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IFouH00794 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:50:56 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:49:29 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <01051715381604.00826@psa836> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01051815505605.00504@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 May 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > David J Grabiner writes > >This ruling is from the Reno (March 1998) minutes. > > > >http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/LawsCommission.htm > > > > When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the > >case of a defender's claim) have the right to inspect their opponent's > >cards and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can > >show a line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces > >more tricks for their side, the director should award them those > >tricks. The director should not raise objections on behalf of the > >players involved. > > > >Thus, in this case, it is irrelevant whether the superior play would > >have been likely, or even rational, for the non-claiming side. > > Maybe - but I bet the person who penned the above was not thinking of > an objection by dummy. In that case, why is there the parenthetical notes that dummy can confer with declarer before acquiesences? Play has ceased after the claim, and thus dummy is no longer dumb and has the same right as anyone else to draw attention to an irregularity. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 09:10:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4IN9oG10562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:09:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4IN9ft10518 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:09:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010518230921.LNBF715.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 11:09:21 +1200 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" CC: Subject: Re: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 23:10:51 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010518230921.LNBF715.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: John Nichols > Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:02:18 -0500 > To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" > Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing > > Everyone starts with the Queen > 4 tricks to declarer > This is far too simplistic. If everyone starts with the Queen why can't they say so - A claim should be accompanied by the order in which cards will be played. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Musgrove > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Sent: 5/16/01 1:30 AM > Subject: [BLML] More faulty directing > > I promised to submit the following for judgement: > > North > -- > -- > Q 10 9 8 > -- East > x > xx > J > x > > > Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer states the > rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about the outstanding J. > > I state that 3/4 of the time she will lose a trick to the J, and 1/4 of > the > time she will play the Q and take all tricks, so I award 3/4 of MPs for > 5D > going off 1, and 1/4 of the MPs for 5D making. Both sides are happy. > The > only problem is that Australian directors are not yet allowed to rule > using > 12C3 (I don't think). > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 09:15:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4INFWr11170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:15:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4INFQt11162 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:15:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010518231507.LOAB715.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 11:15:07 +1200 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "BLML" CC: Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 23:16:36 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010518231507.LOAB715.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: Ed Reppert > Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:33:32 -0400 > To: Adam Beneschan > CC: "BLML" , adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing > > > You're asking declarer not to notice one opponent is void in hearts > until his *fourth* discard. I suspect most will notice on the first. > It is irrelevant what most declarer's will do. It is only relevant whether or not what you are proposing is careless or irrational. I argue that it is plainly careless to not notice a discard and not irrational. And further this player has exhibited such carelessness by not mentioning the possibility of hearts breaking in the original statement of the claim. > > Regards, > > Ed > Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 09:18:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4INI5g11311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:18:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4INHxt11307 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:17:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.40.146]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.0 Patch 3 (built Mar 23 2001)) with SMTP id <0GDK0028B0OCFV@saturno.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 May 2001 17:17:02 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:44:11 -0400 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <001901c0dfdf$d641a020$922828c4@john> Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010517074859.00b93680@127.0.0.1> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk | Eric Landau writes | | >But, Richard, having admitted that you might lead low in this position, | >imagine that in some future session you claim the last three tricks | >with your 865, having forgotten that the 7 was out, and the ruling is | >that you are presumed to lead low and lose the last three tricks. In | >the same session, Mrs. Worldclassexpert makes exactly the same claim | >and is awarded the last three tricks, on the grounds that it would be | >irrational for a player of *her* class to start the suit with a low | >card. Would you consider that fair or equitable? Would you think that | >an official interpretation of law that made these both correct rulings | >was good for the game? |From: "David Stevenson" | I would not rule this way, which seems illogical to me. Yes, I | believe that allowing for the class of player in claims *is* good for | the game, but I think this a bad example: how you play from 865 does not | depend on the level of the player. | | -- The player has made a bad claim, no matter what the card combination. We have to decide what they would play so that we can give a result. It seems to me that unless you could recreate the conditions at the time, a less than optimum play may have occurred. The player may have been distracted, disturbed, tired, not in the game, whatever. They made a bad claim, if a bad play exists then give it to them. Players need to be educated to make claims stating any outstanding trumps & highcards, or wait until they have been played. John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica e-mail: johnmacg@hotmail.com johnmacg@racsa.co.cr CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 19 09:39:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4INdHE12411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:39:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx2.lineone.net (mx2.lineone.net [194.75.152.209]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4INd8t12399 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:39:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-66-91.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.66.91]) by mx2.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4INZOH15369; Sat, 19 May 2001 00:35:24 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002f01c0dff3$98932140$5b42063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200105181629.JAA29594@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 00:34:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Cc: Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing > > > > Kooijman, A. (Fri 18 May 2001 08:21) writes: > > > > >Oh yes, not made up, happened 2 weeks ago > > >and I didn't prepare the board. > > > > > >A7 5 > > >5 AKQJ873 > > >KQJ10632 A5 > > >A62 954 > > > > > >The pair enjoyed bidding up to 7NT and after > > >the SK lead West counted his tricks and claimed > > >saying 7 heart tricks, 7 diamond tricks and 2 aces. > > >Then south put down 109642 in hearts: 1 down. > > ---------------- \x/ -------------------- > But I don't see any way that down 1 can be correct. > To do so, you'd have to argue (for instance) that it > would be "rational" to pitch one diamond and two > black cards on the top hearts, but "irrational" to > pitch two or three diamonds. Which of course makes > no sense whatsoever. > > -- Adam > +=+ Since declarer has claimed seven diamond tricks and two black aces none of these can be discarded on winning hearts. He has claimed sixteen tricks but I think he will be allowed only thirteen of them. I take the view that having noted the play to Ace Hearts it would be insane to try to cash the fifth Heart; the thirteen tricks that he can cash are embraced within the statement of clarification that immediately followed the claim, so that Law 70D allows him to turn to the Diamonds for the tricks when he finds that the Hearts fail him. ~ 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 May 19 10:38:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4J0bf215214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 10:37:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4J0ant15173 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 10:36:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-54-245.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.54.245]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4J0a8502387 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 01:36:08 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <004c01c0dffb$b6b0cf80$5b42063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <20010518202647.KMYR699.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.8]> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 01:34:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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 Discussion List Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing > > the attitude of those who want all possible > tricks after such a claim. +=+ In an EBL or a WBF Appeals Committee I would expect to find that it was the defenders who were forced by the Director to make an appeal if they wished to do so in this case. I would have as little respect for the action of the Director if he did not rule for the claimer and make the defenders appeal, as I would have for the action of the defenders if they did 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 May 19 12:39:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4J2bbl08350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 May 2001 12:37:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4J2bEt08337 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 12:37:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010519023653.MYEZ715.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 14:36:53 +1200 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "\"Bridge Laws Discussion List\" \"Grattan Endicott\"" CC: Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 2:38:22 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010519023653.MYEZ715.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Date: Sat, 19 May 2From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 21 12:09:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4L298Q24464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 12:09:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com ([64.4.23.225]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4L28vt24421 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 12:08:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 20 May 2001 19:08:13 -0700 Received: from 24.113.31.225 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 21 May 2001 02:08:13 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.113.31.225] From: "Mrs. Guggenheim" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:08:13 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 May 2001 02:08:13.0495 (UTC) FILETIME=[E420EC70:01C0E19A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I felt as if I had stepped from one book to another (*Alice in Wonderland*) when I read this reply from H De W. Herman De Wael wrote: > >Wayne wrote: > > > > > > > > Just tell me what you would rule, Wayne, if this declarer > > > simply put down his cards and writes +2220 on his scorecard > > > ? > > > Are you really saying that you would rule against him ? And > > > yet you propose to rule against someone who has said more ? > > > > > > > Yes because the one who said more incriminated himself. And the fact >that this declarer believes there are 7 heart tricks may lead him to go >astray. > >You really don't see that this is impossible ? >Please follow me in a detailed argument. > >Sometimes, a player will say things without actually looking >at the cards. Does this incriminate him ? Or does it mean >he has failed to look at the cards ? It makes him a blithering idiot. >When I say "I have seven heart tricks" does this mean that I >believe this, or that I think this ? There is a subtle >difference, you understand. > >Now if it turns out that I really believe I have seven heart >tricks, then by all means I should pay the price. But when >it merely turns out that I think I do, then I should be >allowed to look again and discover that it is not true after >all. > >Now by all means be as harsh on this as you want. But don't >be dogmatic, please. > >Now return to the dutchman in 7NT. What do you think really >happened? I think this claim came after half a second. Do >you not believe so too? >Or if you don't, shouldn't we be asking the TD to ask this >of the table? > >Let's suppose indeed the claim came after half a second. > >Do you really think this declarer has investigated the >hearts thoroughly and believes he has seven tricks there no >matter how the cards lie ? >Or can you agree with me that he has simply counted the >length of the suit and hastily made a sum that ended at >higher than 13 ? > >If you believe this, then how can you still say that saying >something about it has incriminated him ? > >You see Wayne, you are suffering of what I have now >discovered is the major illness concerning claims on blml : >you confuse errors. > >I am all in favour of not allowing a claimer a second chance >on an error already made. Thus, if I think that a claimer >has studied a suit (perhaps because he has taken quite >enough time to do so), and he still comes up with a wrong >answer, then I shall rule against him. >But if a claimer has not studied a particular suit, the >error he has made is one of hastily claiming, not of >misstudying a suit. >Then if I am convinced that, in actual play, he cannot fail >to study the suit (and that is certainly not always the >case, though it is in both cases under scrutiny on the list >at the moment), I shall allow him to find the solution (if >there is only one). > >First task of TD in examining claims : find out what mistake >claimer made !! > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html Yours truly, Mrs.Guggenheim _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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 May 21 17:00:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4L6xCG17465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 16:59:12 +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 f4L6x6t17430 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 16:59:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from ACCORDION2.acsys.anu.edu.au (accordion2.apac.edu.au [150.203.56.15]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03056 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 16:58:32 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010521165741.0272f2b8@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:58:30 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] Just a test... you can delete me Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk So why are you looking in here ? Markus Buchhorn, Faculty of Engineering and IT, | Ph: +61 2 61258810 email: markus.buchhorn@anu.edu.au, mail: CSIT Bldg #108 |Fax: +61 2 61259805 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 21 17:09:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4L794o20476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:09:04 +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 f4L78lt20415 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:08:48 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA16756; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:08:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon May 21 09:07:20 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 <01K3TJGWL7G8006T0I@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:07:43 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:06:43 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:07:40 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , ton kooijman , Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B861@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > >"Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > > But I do not agree with those who say that he even will make it > when he does > > not notice the void in north, but will find out later when the 10 > doesn't > > appear. Yes he will notice that, but since he claims 16 tricks he > could > > throw away a diamond on a heart honor. That is not irrational to > me. He will > > notice the void, and that is it. > > > > ton > > > +=+ I do not agree with ton's view here. He has > claimed seven diamond tricks; there is no case > to say he may throw away any of the tricks he > claims. He must be deemed to throw away > cards he does not state to be winners. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ So we do not agree here. Didn't happen much lately. May be the next argument will make your statement less convincing. Let us assume the hearts are running. Now with your approach he can't play anymore after cashing AKQJ in hearts, since he will not throw away winners. The question is why he only starts throwing away winners when he is out of losers if it doesn't matter at all. Doesn't the ACBL has a guideline for the order in which unimportant cards are played to a trick? Randomly I suppose. The problem is that his statement is incorrect, not so much because of the possible 5 - 0 break but because there are only 13 tricks to win. Never seen a player discarding an ace just for fun? Anyway we both give declarer 13 tricks and that decides the result of the match. 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 May 21 17:37:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4L7b8B27202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:37:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4L7avt27155 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:36:57 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA02862; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:36:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon May 21 09:35:39 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 <01K3TKGCFKS2006V0J@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:35:31 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:34:31 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:35:22 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing To: "'wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: Herman De Wael Wayne, you are bad on my blood pressure. > Wayne: Why? Declarer claimed 7 heart tricks and 7 heart tricks are not available - bad luck. If declarer thinks 7 heart tricks are available this is exactly the type of situation in which carelessness could prevent him from noticing that the hearts are not running. Therefore I maintain that there is a "normal, careless" line that will fail to yield 13 tricks. Maybe this declarer will claim more carefully next time. The problem is that the 'Waynes' cause blood pressure problems for all the players involved in a bridge event. This attitude of 'bad luck' and 'this player will have learned for the next time' is not restricted to this claim problem but expresses their feeling of how to act as a TD. And it is wrong. I really hoped that no one would accept my one down proposal. To give this problem a more educational content, a suggestion for a guideline: When a TD has to judge in a contested claim he will assume that players can count to 13 and will notice and are not forbidden to act upon the cards played had the play been continued. So assuming declarer will not notice the void in hearts here is bad judgement; a player not noticing the void is playing irrationally. Take it with you to the playing floor (arena, for some of you) gentlemen (of course not more than a suggestion also). 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 May 21 17:51:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4L7pDw00560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:51:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4L7ost00496 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:50:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4L7oFr20196 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 08:50:15 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 08:50 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing 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: > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >L68D: "...if it is disputed by any player (dummy included)..." > > > >That seems to invite dummy's participation. > > Look, Marv, it's me [ok, it is I] who is not inviting dummy to the > party, not TFLB. > > There is a difference between a claim which is just wrong in some way, > for example a suit does not run. I am happy that dummy should point > that out. > > But when dummy realises that the only way the claim will fail is if > declarer does something clever, I will take less notice of it if it > comes from dummy's lips. I'm not sure how you can "take less notice". There is a line on which the claim fails and there are two key possibilities. 1) The declarer will notice the line eventually or 2) the declarer will stumble blindly onto the line by accident (I have seen clueless declarers execute squeeze endplays without knowing what they are doing). In either case this is surely a "doubtful point to be ruled against claimer". To me it is directly analogous to a claim by declarer where one defender says "If my partner....". We don't normally worry about whether partner is good enough to do X, we just assume that they will. Personally I might make an exception in either case if the less experienced partner volunteered "I wouldn't play like that" but not otherwise. Take Marv's example where the claimer could be reduced to DA, HKx and endplayed. Sure it may be unlikely that declarer will find the endplay but it is also possible that claimer will reduce to DA2,HK in an attempt to avoid the "obvious" endplay and declarer will cash HA and see be surprised when HK drops. 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 May 21 19:43:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4L9hJV07642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 19:43:19 +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 f4L9h9t07637 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 19:43:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.33.45] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 151mCr-00017P-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 10:42:30 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:41:24 +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 Ton wrote: > When a TD has to judge in a contested claim he will assume that > players can count to 13 and will notice and are not forbidden to act upon > the cards played had the play been continued. > So assuming declarer will not notice the void in hearts here is bad > judgement; a player not noticing the void is playing irrationally. Surely not. If this were the case, a player who fails to draw an outstanding trump because he does not believe that there is one would also be considered to be playing irrationally, and Law 70C would not exist. Why on earth should a director make an assumption that a player who has, in effect, said that he cannot count to 13 actually can? 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 May 21 20:59:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LAwmo07963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 20:58:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LAwZt07953 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 20:58:36 +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 151nNq-000AdJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 10:57:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:51:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <20010519023653.MYEZ715.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> <3B062993.84CB8857@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3B062993.84CB8857@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 >Just tell me what you would rule, Wayne, if this declarer >simply put down his cards and writes +2220 on his scorecard >? >Are you really saying that you would rule against him ? And >yet you propose to rule against someone who has said more ? If I have a choice between ruling against someone who has made an incorrect claim statement, and someone who has not made an incorrect claim statement, I really think I would go for the former. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 21 20:59:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LAwo007964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 20:58:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f4LAwZt07954 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 20:58:36 +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 151nNq-0007Ox-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 10:57:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:53:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! References: <6J+vTYAjDHB7EwKo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <009b01c0e024$63ae84c0$53a7aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <009b01c0e024$63ae84c0$53a7aec7@ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman writes >I believe nobody is worried about tap passes that end the auction---not our >subject at all. The subject is direct-seat taps---these are the ones that >cause problems. Sure. But we deduced from the fact that taps are often used to mean passes that when we have to make a decision we shall assume a tap means a pass. I think it is a reasonable deduction. I do not think that saying we must stop all taps to mean passes is a solution. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 21 21:04:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LB46p08021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 21:04:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@loki.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4LB3wt08017 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 21:03:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 151nT5-000252-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 12:03:19 +0100 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing To: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: David Burn's message of Mon, 21 May 2001 10:41:24 +0100 Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 12:03:19 +0100 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Ton wrote: > > > When a TD has to judge in a contested claim he will assume that > > players can count to 13 and will notice and are not forbidden to act > upon > > the cards played had the play been continued. > > So assuming declarer will not notice the void in hearts here is bad > > judgement; a player not noticing the void is playing irrationally. [David Burn replied] > Surely not. If this were the case, a player who fails to draw an > outstanding trump because he does not believe that there is one would > also be considered to be playing irrationally, and Law 70C would not > exist. Why on earth should a director make an assumption that a player > who has, in effect, said that he cannot count to 13 actually can? David, you fail to appreciate the role an understanding of psychology plays in the way a TD should resolve claims. The player cannot count up to 13, sure, but that is because he has just had an "Oh I don't give a flying %#$&" moment. This occurs after dummy goes down and declarer has his "He bid 4D on *that* ?!!" moment. At that point it is not irrational for declarer to think that the heart suit contains but 12 cards (or even 11) because the only rational response to the sight of dummy is to reach for a baseball bat and take a swing at partner. However, after the claim is made and contested, declarer experiences an "Oh shit I've messed up again" moment. His capacity to think rationally restored, or at least his ability to subtract 7 + 1 from 13 and arrive at an answer greater than 4, the standard we use to judge irrationality shifts as well. Now it would of course be irrational to fail to notice North showing out in hearts. Indeed, on a slightly different hand, it would be irrational for him not to execute a quadruple trump coup or similar play. After all, if a declarer has a choice between going down in a contract or making via an entry shifting trump squeeze, surely it is irrational to go down? p.s. Apologies for the tone of this post but it's important for me to be critical of a Herman theory about this time every two years, so that when I see him in Tenerife he has an excuse to force me to buy him vast quantities of beer. --- 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 Mon May 21 21:17:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LB9pW08638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 21:09:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4LB9Ht08557 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 21:09:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010521110859.HOUJ681.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 23:08:59 +1200 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: Bridge Laws CC: Subject: RE: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:10:34 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010521110859.HOUJ681.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Kooijman, A." > Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:35:22 +0200 > To: "'wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz'" , > Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing > > > > > From: Herman De Wael > > The problem is that the 'Waynes' cause blood pressure problems for all the > players involved in a bridge event. This attitude of 'bad luck' and 'this > player will have learned for the next time' is not restricted to this claim > problem but expresses their feeling of how to act as a TD. And it is wrong. And the players that claim tricks that are not available are vindicated because the director will try to find an alternative line that will yield the required tricks. > > I really hoped that no one would accept my one down proposal. > To give this problem a more educational content, a suggestion for a > guideline: When a TD has to judge in a contested claim he will assume that > players can count to 13 Surely you can not accept this when the player has already proven that he can not count to 13. >and will notice and are not forbidden to act upon > the cards played had the play been continued. Unless you take the claim to mean that '7 hearts' means that hearts will be played before diamonds there is always the possibility that a player that thinks he has 7 heart tricks will 'rationally for him' play 6 tricks then abandon the diamonds to run his hearts. > So assuming declarer will not notice the void in hearts here is bad > judgement; a player not noticing the void is playing irrationally. > Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 21 22:14:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LCE6A24140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 22:14:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4LCDvt24086 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 22:13:58 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA05763; Mon, 21 May 2001 14:13:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon May 21 14:12:30 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 <01K3TU4UY2NK006VFW@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 21 May 2001 14:12:35 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 21 May 2001 14:11:35 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:12:25 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing To: "'David Burn'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B866@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 wrote: > > > When a TD has to judge in a contested claim he will assume that > > players can count to 13 and will notice and are not forbidden to act > upon > > the cards played had the play been continued. > > So assuming declarer will not notice the void in hearts here is bad > > judgement; a player not noticing the void is playing irrationally. > > Surely not. If this were the case, a player who fails to draw an > outstanding trump because he does not believe that there is one would > also be considered to be playing irrationally, and Law 70C would not > exist. Why on earth should a director make an assumption that a player > who has, in effect, said that he cannot count to 13 actually can? > Dear David, couldn't you be more helpful in trying to get some notions through? You are mixing up things here. A player can act irrationally. And does so when he for example revokes (that is how we defined it), and forgets about the trump K still being outside. But when the TD has to consider the play continuation in case of a claim he does not take into account a possible revoke or forgetting the trump K or miscounting to 12 in stead of 13. That is what this footnote is telling us. And yes, if you take this 7-heart-tricks-claim as having counted to 12 when thinking to have arrived at 13 then you are right not to allow the claim. But then I doubt your judgement. 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 Mon May 21 23:03:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LD2XH05308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 23:02:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LD2Ft05248 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 23:02:16 +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 151ogz-0001Ib-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 12:21:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:20:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@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 <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Ton wrote: > >> When a TD has to judge in a contested claim he will assume that >> players can count to 13 and will notice and are not forbidden to act >upon >> the cards played had the play been continued. >> So assuming declarer will not notice the void in hearts here is bad >> judgement; a player not noticing the void is playing irrationally. > >Surely not. If this were the case, a player who fails to draw an >outstanding trump because he does not believe that there is one would >also be considered to be playing irrationally, and Law 70C would not >exist. Why on earth should a director make an assumption that a player >who has, in effect, said that he cannot count to 13 actually can? > There's a practical difference between making a claim at trick 1, where declarer claims 16 tricks of which only 13 are cashing, and a claim at trick 8 or 9 where " ... a trump remains in one of the opponents hands ... [and] ... claimer made no statement about that trump and it is at all likely ... _was_ unaware_ ... and a trick could be lost ... by any normal play" In the QT98 situation at trick 9 we have discussed elsewhere, this applies, and I feel the balance of doubt has shifted against the claimer. Law 70C must be applied. In the Trick 1 7NT claim, declarer has 13 tricks and there is no element of doubt he will make 13. Had he cashed 4 top hearts and then claimed, saying "rest of the hearts and the diamonds I would rule against him, but unless this is the scenario it is not "a doubtful point [to be] ... resolved against claimer". Law 70A gives claimer the benefit. This one, to paraphrase Ton, has to be ruled by the TD 'on the floor' cheers john >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 00:40:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LEeGG09770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 00:40:16 +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-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 f4LEe8t09766 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 00:40:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-68.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.68]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4LEdSn06732 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 16:39:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B08E5CF.30BFF771@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:54:23 +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] More faulty directing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Mrs Guggenheim, I've heard so much about you. Please tell me when we shall have the opportunity of playing together. I am certain it will make our opponents happy. "Mrs. Guggenheim" wrote: > > > > >Sometimes, a player will say things without actually looking > >at the cards. Does this incriminate him ? Or does it mean > >he has failed to look at the cards ? > > It makes him a blithering idiot. > No, it makes him a player who has claimed without looking. Some people do it all the time. Some people ARE BLITHERING IDIOTS as well, but not necessarily the same. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 00:59:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LExmo09830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 00:59:48 +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 f4LExet09825 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 00:59:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-147.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.147]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4LEx0n15091 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 16:59:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B092C66.E27A35D8@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:55:34 +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] More faulty directing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Ian Ian D Crorie wrote: > [couldn't have put it better myself] > > p.s. > > Apologies for the tone of this post but it's important for me to > be critical of a Herman theory about this time every two years, so > that when I see him in Tenerife he has an excuse to force me to > buy him vast quantities of beer. > There are far too many negatives (and positives) in this sentence for me to grasp the meaning. I am choosing it to mean that I get a large amount of beer from one Scotsman (that would be large in Belgian terms, I hope). Knowing Ian, he will be the one that finds the only pub in town that sells Belgian Beer as well ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 00:59:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LExfN09826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 00:59:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LExWt09816 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 00:59:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-147.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.147]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4LEwsn15059 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 16:58:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B092B75.F290298A@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:51:33 +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] More faulty directing References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, no, you are still misunderstanding. David Burn wrote: > > Ton wrote: > > > When a TD has to judge in a contested claim he will assume that > > players can count to 13 and will notice and are not forbidden to act > upon > > the cards played had the play been continued. > > So assuming declarer will not notice the void in hearts here is bad > > judgement; a player not noticing the void is playing irrationally. > > Surely not. If this were the case, a player who fails to draw an > outstanding trump because he does not believe that there is one would > also be considered to be playing irrationally, and Law 70C would not > exist. Why on earth should a director make an assumption that a player > who has, in effect, said that he cannot count to 13 actually can? > > David Burn > London, England > A player who fails to draw an outstanding trump has made a mistake that he shall be deemed to continue. The declarer in Ton's example did NOT make a mistake - he simply forgot to look. That mistake cannot be continued, as one must certainly look before playing. Don't you see that the mistake is not the same ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 00:59:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LExcr09823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 00:59:38 +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 f4LExUt09814 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 00:59:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-147.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.147]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4LEwqn15041 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 16:58:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B092AFD.AD53D7F7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:49:33 +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] More faulty directing References: <20010519023653.MYEZ715.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> <3B062993.84CB8857@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 > > >Just tell me what you would rule, Wayne, if this declarer > >simply put down his cards and writes +2220 on his scorecard > >? > >Are you really saying that you would rule against him ? And > >yet you propose to rule against someone who has said more ? > > If I have a choice between ruling against someone who has made an > incorrect claim statement, and someone who has not made an incorrect > claim statement, I really think I would go for the former. > David, you have misunderstood me. The choice is between someone who made an incoorect statement and someone who did not say a thing. I was asking Wayne if he would rule against someone who puts down the cards that Ton showed us, when he said nothing. I was doubting he would. Everyone can see there are 13 tricks there. Yet someone who says there are 16 tricks (including 3 heart tricks that are not valid) would receive only 6 from Wayne. Please David, don't drop in on discussions with remarks that are completely wrong in their context. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 01:03:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LF3Ov09872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 01:03:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LF3It09868 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 01:03:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16921; Mon, 21 May 2001 08:02:39 -0700 Message-Id: <200105211502.IAA16921@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 18 May 2001 23:21:40 BST." Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 08:02:39 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Adam Beneschan (Fri 18 May 2001 17:30) writes: > >> Chas Fellows wrote: > >>> Kooijman, A. (Fri 18 May 2001 08:21) writes: > >>> > >>> Oh yes, not made up, happened 2 weeks ago and I didn't prepare > >>> the board. > >>> A7 5 > >>> 5 AKQJ873 > >>> KQJ10632 A5 > >>> A62 954 > >>> The pair enjoyed bidding up to 7NT and after the SK lead West > >>> counted his tricks and claimed saying 7 heart tricks, 7 diamond > >>> tricks and 2 aces. Then south put down 109642 in hearts: 1 down. > >> > >> Not if the TD is Herman or one of his adherents. They would regard > >> the claim as 'breaking down' as soon as North shows out in hearts > >> or after four rounds of hearts when either the 10 or 9 is still out. > >> Now it would be irrational for declarer not to switch to A and > >> another diamond at trick 6. > > > > On the other hand, if you don't notice that there's a problem until > > you cash four rounds of hearts, what's to prevent you from pitching > > diamonds on the top hearts? Now, when the claim breaks down, it's > > too late---you only have 10 tricks. > > Declarer has also claimed seven diamond tricks - it would hardly be > consistent with that statement to pitch winning diamonds in preference to > the three losing black cards. I don't know . . . I think anyone who claims 16 tricks is expecting to throw some winners away. -- 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 May 22 01:08:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LF82t11405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 01:08:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LF7rt11356 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 01:07:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-51-157.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.51.157]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4LF78522417; Mon, 21 May 2001 16:07:08 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003f01c0e207$a9a0a5a0$9d337bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Less (was More) faulty directing Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:05:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > To give this problem a more educational content, > a suggestion for a guideline: When a TD has to > judge in a contested claim he will assume that > players can count to 13 and will notice and are > not forbidden to act upon the cards played had > the play been continued. So assuming declarer > will not notice the void in hearts here is bad > judgement; a player not noticing the void is > playing irrationally. > +=+ Interpretation of Law, Bali Agenda, although it is perhaps already patently obvious to the...er.. 'educated' ? :-)) " Law 70E extends beyond questions of 'finesse or drop'. It is interpreted to mean that the Director shall adjudge that claimer would take account of any discovery of circumstances of the hand that he would make in pursuing the line of play in his statement of clarification (or any other normal line authorised under Law 70)." [ I recall a ruling made by Roy Higson when he was CTD of the English Bridge Union. A competent player made a claim that was based upon ruffing a suit; opponents objected on the grounds that the contract was in 3 No Trumps. Roy ruled that when he attempted to ruff the claimer would discover that he was playing in No Trumps and would play accordingly from that point onwards, as it happened making nine tricks instead of eleven that he would have made otherwise; as it was IMPs Teams it did not cost too greatly. That was probably over twenty years ago. ] ~ 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 May 22 01:13:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LFDIT13160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 01:13:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LFDBt13121 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 01:13:11 +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 RAA16312; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:08:59 +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 RAA05044; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:12:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010521171618.0084a2a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:16:18 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL position on class of player and claim Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200105181532.IAA28732@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 08:32 18/05/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> Is this a troll? Has the ACBLLC really said that the standard for >> judging claims varies not only with the level of ability of the claimer >> but with the level of ability of their opponents as well? Where in >> TFLB could anyone have found any justification for that? > >I don't think it's a troll. AG : could anyone explain me what a troll is ? As a Tolkien freak, I could well imagine it, but it doesn't seem to fit into the actual subject. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 01:20:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LFJxY13706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 01:19:59 +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 f4LFJqt13663 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 01:19:52 +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 RAA16751; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:18:57 +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 RAA09472; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:18:40 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010521172259.007f2cd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:22:59 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , blml@farebrother.cx From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Polish ClubEd Reppert [ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: References: <200105180142.VAA23787@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <200105172251.PAA15293@mailhub.irvine.com> <200105180142.VAA23787@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:21 18/05/01 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 9:42 PM -0400 5/17/01, Michael Farebrother wrote: >>I'm not sure about Crowhurst's - 2D, at the GCC level can not be "a >>strong hand *or* a three-suiter, min 10HCP" - it can be only one of >>those meanings (or min 10HCP, 5-4 in known suits). If the Roman is >>strong, it should be ok. > >Who said anything about "min 10HCP"? :-) Crowhurst described, in >1976, I think it was, the 3 suited meaning as "Roman" (not "mini >Roman") and went on to say that it shows something like 16-22 HCP. So >I guess that's strong. AG : in Europa, for the purpose of defining classes of conventions, 'strong' means 'at least one King above average, or compensating playing strength'. So the Roman 2D (usually played as 16+) is allowed at intermediate level, Wilkosz is not. A 2C opener, meaning at least 7 tricks in a major or 8 in a minor, regardless of honor strength, had been accepted as a non-BSC by a Belgian systems committee. Why the Roman 2C (11-15 HCP, 3-suited) has also been escapes me. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 02:03:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LG2oe14505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 02:02:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f4LG2it14501 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 02:02:44 +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 f4LG25244333 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 12:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010521115639.00af4be0@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, 21 May 2001 12:02:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL position on class of player and claim In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010521171618.0084a2a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200105181532.IAA28732@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:16 AM 5/21/01, alain wrote: >AG : could anyone explain me what a troll is ? As a Tolkien freak, I could >well imagine it, but it doesn't seem to fit into the actual subject. Literally, the act of trailing a baited line behind a slow-moving boat in an attempt to catch a fish. In netspeak, the act of posting a ridiculous message in an attempt to "catch" someone believing it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 02:26:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LGQJ214550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 02:26:19 +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 f4LGQEt14546 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 02:26:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:21:31 -0700 Message-ID: <005f01c0e212$99f91320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:25:03 -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: "Tim West-meads" > > >From: "David Stevenson" > > > > >L68D: "...if it is disputed by any player (dummy included)..." > > > > > >That seems to invite dummy's participation. > > > > Look, Marv, it's me [ok, it is I] who is not inviting dummy to the > > party, not TFLB. > > > > There is a difference between a claim which is just wrong in some way, > > for example a suit does not run. I am happy that dummy should point > > that out. > > > > But when dummy realises that the only way the claim will fail is if > > declarer does something clever, I will take less notice of it if it > > comes from dummy's lips. > > I'm not sure how you can "take less notice". There is a line on which the > claim fails and there are two key possibilities. 1) The declarer will > notice the line eventually or 2) the declarer will stumble blindly onto > the line by accident (I have seen clueless declarers execute squeeze > endplays without knowing what they are doing). In either case this is > surely a "doubtful point to be ruled against claimer". To me it is > directly analogous to a claim by declarer where one defender says "If my > partner....". We don't normally worry about whether partner is good > enough to do X, we just assume that they will. Personally I might make an > exception in either case if the less experienced partner volunteered "I > wouldn't play like that" but not otherwise. With all hands exposed on the table after a claim is contested, either partner (including the one who was dummy) can point out a line of play that would invalidate the claim. It follows that partners can confer on the matter. Nothing in L70B suggests that "the class of player involved" should be a consideration. Also, statements against self-interest should be ignored. Either a line of play that invalidates a claim is found, or it is not. The TD has nothing to decide unless L70C/D/E is involved. > Take Marv's example where the claimer could be reduced to DA, HKx and > endplayed. Sure it may be unlikely that declarer will find the endplay > but it is also possible that claimer will reduce to DA2,HK in an attempt > to avoid the "obvious" endplay and declarer will cash HA and see be > surprised when HK drops. With all cards exposed on the table, as is required, declarer should have no problem. Nevertheless, dummy is allowed to point out a line of declarer play that invalidates the claim. There is no need for a TD to divine "what would have happened" if the deal were to be played out when the declaring side says "This would have happened." (Subject to L70C/D/E, of course.) 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 May 22 02:28:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LGRx914565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 02:27:59 +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 f4LGRqt14561 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 02:27:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id SAA24336; Mon, 21 May 2001 18:25:39 +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 SAA14741; Mon, 21 May 2001 18:25:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010521182941.00840100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:29:41 +0200 To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Kooijman, A." , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Less faulty directing, more faulty play In-Reply-To: <003f01c0e207$a9a0a5a0$9d337bd5@pacific> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:05 21/05/01 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >[ I recall a ruling made by Roy Higson when he >was CTD of the English Bridge Union. A competent >player made a claim that was based upon ruffing >a suit; opponents objected on the grounds that the >contract was in 3 No Trumps. Roy ruled that when he >attempted to ruff the claimer would discover that he >was playing in No Trumps and would play accordingly >from that point onwards, as it happened making nine >tricks instead of eleven that he would have made >otherwise; as it was IMPs Teams it did not cost too >greatly. AG : the declarer was unlucky ; if he was RR himself, he could well have come home with twelve :) It reminds me of another case. I was playing against some LOL, who took the lead, cashed the Ace from Axxx facing singleton, then played a small, and called from dummy 'ruff'. At this moment, we reminded her that the contract was 2NT. Upon being summoned, and after some seconds (to regain his composure), the director decided that no card had been played, thus she could call for any other card from the dummy. (Yes, he said 'any other', which doesn't seem to be right when none has been called. So what ?) As she had opened our best suit, and we had opened our second best ourselves, the contract didn't fare well. Two interesting remarks emerged from the analysis of the case : 1) always put your shortest suit on your right when tabling the dummy in a NT contract ; it avoids somme errors from partner. 2) it could sometimes be less penalizing to call 'ruff' than 'small plum' or than to take the cards from dummy oneself. In the latter two cases, some specific card would have been played. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 02:35:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LGZ9t14586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 02:35:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esmtp.its.it (esmtp.its.it [151.92.2.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4LGZ3t14582 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 02:35:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from svuns013-1.its.it (151.92.250.197) by esmtp.its.it (5.1.056) id 3ADED75A0021F971 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 18:33:28 +0200 Received: from svuns013.its.it (151.92.1.240) by svuns013-1.its.it (5.1.056) id 3AED4277001CEF47 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 18:34:19 +0200 Received: from ex1unintd09.its.it (151.92.250.34) by svuns013.its.it (5.1.056) id 3AED4267001C643C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 18:34:19 +0200 Received: by EX1UNINTD09 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52) id ; Mon, 21 May 2001 18:32:24 +0200 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Average in cross-IMP Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:29:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Counting cross-imp : What is the best method of counting average in form 60% 40% or 60% 50% etc , with 20-25 tables and 20 rounds of 1 board ? Bye ENNIO NARDULLO -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 02:41:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LGf5U14609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 02:41:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LGext14601 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 02:41:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:36:18 -0700 Message-ID: <006501c0e214$aa3caba0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Cc: References: <3.0.6.32.20010521171618.0084a2a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL position on class of player and claim Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:39:48 -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: > >> > >> Is this a troll? Has the ACBLLC really said that the standard for > >> judging claims varies not only with the level of ability of the claimer > >> but with the level of ability of their opponents as well? Where in > >> TFLB could anyone have found any justification for that? > > > >I don't think it's a troll. > > > AG : could anyone explain me what a troll is ? As a Tolkien freak, I could > well imagine it, but it doesn't seem to fit into the actual subject. > My understanding is that a troll is a statement posted to a mailing list, newsgroup, etc., that does not reflect the author's thinking but whose purpose is merely to provoke discussion. Ton's "Down one" for the faulty claim is an example. It was not his opinion and did provoke a lot of discussion. The allusion is to a fisherman's trolling, which consists of dangling a bait behind a slowly moving boat in the hope of catching some fish. 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 May 22 03:22:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LHM5U14749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 03:22:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com ([209.185.241.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4LHM0t14745 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 03:22:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 21 May 2001 10:21:15 -0700 Received: from 172.158.9.10 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:21:15 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.158.9.10] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL position on class of player and claim Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:21:15 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 May 2001 17:21:15.0789 (UTC) FILETIME=[70EB9BD0:01C0E21A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >From: "alain gottcheiner" > > AG : could anyone explain me what a troll is ? As a Tolkien freak, >I could > > well imagine it, but it doesn't seem to fit into the actual >subject. > > >My understanding is that a troll is a statement posted to a mailing >list, newsgroup, etc., that does not reflect the author's thinking >but whose purpose is merely to provoke discussion. Ton's "Down one" >for the faulty claim is an example. It was not his opinion and did >provoke a lot of discussion. That is playing devil's advocate. Trolling is purely recreational and has no redeeming qualities. As a game, trolling is scored by getting the most response from the least bait, e.g., having the biggest sub-tree in a thread. Ton's post was definitely not a troll. -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 May 22 03:49:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LHjtu14814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 03:45:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LHjnt14810 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 03:45:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4LHh4d00507; Mon, 21 May 2001 13:43:05 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <6J+vTYAjDHB7EwKo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <009b01c0e024$63ae84c0$53a7aec7@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:43:45 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:53 PM +0100 5/20/01, David Stevenson wrote: > Sure. But we deduced from the fact that taps are often used to mean >passes that when we have to make a decision we shall assume a tap means >a pass. I think it is a reasonable deduction. I do not think that >saying we must stop all taps to mean passes is a solution. We have a regulation. It says (in the ACBL, anyway) that a call is made when a card is removed from the bidding box "with intent." it does not say that a call is made by tapping on the table. People routinely violate this regulation. If we ignore those violations (and thus Law 81C6), of what use is the regulation? If you want to change the regulation, fine. If you want to say enforcing the regulation won't work, fine. But don't say enforcing it "is not a solution". That's a cop out. 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/AwUBOwlUI72UW3au93vOEQIAfwCaA4IE/p8/St9/uVlcdgF6kraZfP8An2X1 ZedY1WvLPNuCdBVK6yJ5/2F5 =7Pnj -----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 May 22 04:05:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LI5bB14891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 04:05:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LI5Vt14887 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 04:05:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4LI36d05697; Mon, 21 May 2001 14:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:58:27 -0400 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:20 PM +0100 5/21/01, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In the QT98 situation at trick 9 we have discussed elsewhere, this >applies, and I feel the balance of doubt has shifted against the >claimer. Law 70C must be applied. FWIW, I agree. :-) >In the Trick 1 7NT claim, declarer has 13 tricks and there is no element >of doubt he will make 13. Had he cashed 4 top hearts and then claimed, >saying "rest of the hearts and the diamonds I would rule against him, >but unless this is the scenario it is not "a doubtful point [to be] ... >resolved against claimer". Law 70A gives claimer the benefit. Eggzackly! 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/AwUBOwlYxb2UW3au93vOEQLsWACfWOuAYPNFQOpWgi0pwMapmBdbQ+0AoKyV 7sYVe6sHPj4Z7VJYxAmCGEDo =/6Qf -----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 May 22 04:24:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LINn814938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 04:23:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LINht14934 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 04:23:44 +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 LAA20116; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200105211823.LAA20116@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 May 2001 13:43:45 EDT." Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:04 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > At 4:53 PM +0100 5/20/01, David Stevenson wrote: > > Sure. But we deduced from the fact that taps are often used to mean > >passes that when we have to make a decision we shall assume a tap means > >a pass. I think it is a reasonable deduction. I do not think that > >saying we must stop all taps to mean passes is a solution. > > We have a regulation. It says (in the ACBL, anyway) that a call is > made when a card is removed from the bidding box "with intent." it > does not say that a call is made by tapping on the table. People > routinely violate this regulation. If we ignore those violations (and > thus Law 81C6), of what use is the regulation? Reading the above sentence in context (see http://www.acbl.org/ regulations/bidbox.htm), I cannot interpret it to mean "Removing a card from the bidding box with intent is the only proper form of making a call, and other forms are improper." I think that's reading something into the wording of the regulation that isn't quite there. The main purpose of this sentence is to distinguish actions involving bidding cards that constitute a call from actions involving bidding cards that do not constitute a call---not to make any statement about actions that don't involve a bidding box (such as making a call verbally, e.g.). -- 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 May 22 04:25:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LIPXS14952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 04:25:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LIPQt14948 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 04:25:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4LIN0A28600; Mon, 21 May 2001 14:23:01 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105211502.IAA16921@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200105211502.IAA16921@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:21:57 -0400 To: Adam Beneschan From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Cc: "BLML" , adam@irvine.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 8:02 AM -0700 5/21/01, Adam Beneschan wrote: >I don't know . . . I think anyone who claims 16 tricks is expecting to >throw some winners away. Perhaps. But not before he gets rid of his losers. 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/AwUBOwldcL2UW3au93vOEQLMuACcCWWID11IATokReN+gFY0ilruuDUAoKJ3 LJ/vQ5AEjwPxVN7bM30268dp =3auK -----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 May 22 04:36:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LIakR14988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 04:36:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4LIaet14983 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 04:36:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-185.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.185]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id E21B636D12; Mon, 21 May 2001 20:36:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006501c0e222$f2db5600$b9b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Kooijman, A." , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Less (was More) faulty directing Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:04:19 +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 >Grattan Endicott================================= > "The material is hazardous, > however there are no risks." > - radio report, 7th June 01 > >> >> To give this problem a more educational content, >> a suggestion for a guideline: When a TD has to >> judge in a contested claim he will assume that >> players can count to 13 and will notice and are >> not forbidden to act upon the cards played had >> the play been continued. So assuming declarer >> will not notice the void in hearts here is bad >> judgement; a player not noticing the void is >> playing irrationally. >> >+=+ Interpretation of Law, Bali Agenda, although >it is perhaps already patently obvious to the...er.. >'educated' ? :-)) Guidelines will help in all circumstances where TD's show to need them. And we had several of those in this problem. If you are able to convince them with law 70E I am glad to hear that. Let the 'Waynes' speak (I am not intentionally rude here, though not intentionally friendly either). ton > " Law 70E extends beyond questions of 'finesse >or drop'. It is interpreted to mean that the Director >shall adjudge that claimer would take account of >any discovery of circumstances of the hand that >he would make in pursuing the line of play in his >statement of clarification (or any other normal line >authorised under Law 70)." > >[ I recall a ruling made by Roy Higson when he >was CTD of the English Bridge Union. A competent >player made a claim that was based upon ruffing >a suit; opponents objected on the grounds that the >contract was in 3 No Trumps. Roy ruled that when he >attempted to ruff the claimer would discover that he >was playing in No Trumps and would play accordingly >from that point onwards, as it happened making nine >tricks instead of eleven that he would have made >otherwise; as it was IMPs Teams it did not cost too >greatly. > That was probably over twenty years ago. ] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 04:40:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LIeL415008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 04:40:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail6.svr.pol.co.uk (mail6.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4LIeFt15004 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 04:40:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-132.elbereth.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.178.132] helo=default) by mail6.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 151uaa-0005Je-00; Mon, 21 May 2001 19:39:33 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01c0e225$376977a0$84b2883e@default> From: "larry bennett" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Kooijman, A." , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <003f01c0e207$a9a0a5a0$9d337bd5@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Less (was More) faulty directing Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 19:37:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I remember (long ago) a directing course when we were asked to rule on a situation where the auction had gone 2D (strong) 3D (positive) 6NT unapposed. Declarer ducked the first trick Then claimed on a "cross-ruff'. The opinions varied enormously. Larry ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Kooijman, A. ; Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Less (was More) faulty directing > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "The material is hazardous, > however there are no risks." > - radio report, 7th June 01 > > > > > To give this problem a more educational content, > > a suggestion for a guideline: When a TD has to > > judge in a contested claim he will assume that > > players can count to 13 and will notice and are > > not forbidden to act upon the cards played had > > the play been continued. So assuming declarer > > will not notice the void in hearts here is bad > > judgement; a player not noticing the void is > > playing irrationally. > > > +=+ Interpretation of Law, Bali Agenda, although > it is perhaps already patently obvious to the...er.. > 'educated' ? :-)) > " Law 70E extends beyond questions of 'finesse > or drop'. It is interpreted to mean that the Director > shall adjudge that claimer would take account of > any discovery of circumstances of the hand that > he would make in pursuing the line of play in his > statement of clarification (or any other normal line > authorised under Law 70)." > > [ I recall a ruling made by Roy Higson when he > was CTD of the English Bridge Union. A competent > player made a claim that was based upon ruffing > a suit; opponents objected on the grounds that the > contract was in 3 No Trumps. Roy ruled that when he > attempted to ruff the claimer would discover that he > was playing in No Trumps and would play accordingly > from that point onwards, as it happened making nine > tricks instead of eleven that he would have made > otherwise; as it was IMPs Teams it did not cost too > greatly. > That was probably over twenty years ago. ] > ~ 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-L AWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 08:01:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LM0sJ25323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:00:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f4LM0dt25314 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:00:40 +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 151xiW-000BGM-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 22:59:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 12:53:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$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: "Marvin L. French" > >From: "David Stevenson" >> >> >L68D: "...if it is disputed by any player (dummy included)..." >> > >> >That seems to invite dummy's participation. >> >> Look, Marv, it's me [ok, it is I] who is not inviting dummy to >the >> party, not TFLB. >> >> There is a difference between a claim which is just wrong in >some way, >> for example a suit does not run. I am happy that dummy should >point >> that out. >> >> But when dummy realises that the only way the claim will fail is >if >> declarer does something clever, I will take less notice of it if >it >> comes from dummy's lips. >> > >David, you are writing new law. A pair can confer when determining >whether an opposing claim is valid. No, I am not writing new Law. Try reading L70A. >Actual case at my table few years ago: > >Declarer is cashing dummy's string of good clubs, with AQ of hearts >and a losing diamond on the side. Opponent over dummy says he will >take the last two tricks, showing his king of hearts and high >diamonds. I (dummy) contest this claim, pointing out that the last >club will strip him down to one diamond and Kx of hearts, and he can >be endplayed. > >It is doubtful that my partner would have executed the endplay, >although it was quite obvious. After the TD and an AC ruled against >us, ACBL HQ said they were wrong. The endplay must be assumed. > >Judging such things based on "class of player involved" is an >elitist notion that does not belong in the Laws, and is not in this >particular law (L70). Well, it is in the ACBL version of the Laws. >I have not participated in the "irrational" discussion, but have the >opinion that someone who doesn't know who is involved should decide >whether a line of play is irrational, and "the class of player >involved" should be erased from the next version of the Laws. There >is no objective measure of "class," other than for well-known >experts, who thereby get an unfair advantage in disputed claims. This is not true. Directors consider the class of player involved in claims, and it works both ways. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 08:01:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LM0qe25322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:00:52 +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-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 f4LM0dt25315 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:00:40 +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 151xiX-000BGO-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 23:00:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:39:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Double out of turn MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bd. 7 S. 10862 Dlr: South H. 10 Vul: Both D. Q83 C. QJ983 S. A93 S. KQ54 H. 4 H. AQ98 D. K765 D. AJ104 C. A10652 C. 7 S. J7 H. KJ76532 D. 92 C. K4 W N E S 2H (weak) X (1) P P X All pass (1) Double out of rotation. South did not accept the out of rotation double by East. So under L32A, East's double was cancelled and West has to pass whenever it is his turn to call. Therefore, West passed, so North and East doubled again and everyone passed. 2HX went down 4 (partly due to a bad play by South), +1100 to E/W. N/S was unhappy with this result. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 08:51:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LMp2Z27906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:51:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LMoet27834 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:50:41 +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 151yUz-000NGb-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 23:50:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 23:48:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double 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 , David Stevenson writes > >Bd. 7 S. 10862 >Dlr: South H. 10 >Vul: Both D. Q83 > C. QJ983 >S. A93 S. KQ54 >H. 4 H. AQ98 >D. K765 D. AJ104 >C. A10652 C. 7 > S. J7 > H. KJ76532 > D. 92 > C. K4 > > W N E S > 2H (weak) > X (1) > P P X All pass >(1) Double out of rotation. > I think it's in the same class as the Rottweiller coup (2nd seat multi OOT on a 1 count). I remove the double (L72B1). cheers john > South did not accept the out of rotation double by East. So under >L32A, East's double was cancelled and West has to pass whenever it is >his turn to call. Therefore, West passed, so North and East doubled >again and everyone passed. 2HX went down 4 (partly due to a bad play by >South), +1100 to E/W. N/S was unhappy with this result. > -- 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 May 22 08:52:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LMqjh28387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:52:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f4LMqdt28348 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:52:40 +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 151yWv-000NbJ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 May 2001 23:52:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 23:50:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Average in cross-IMP 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 , NARDULLO Ennio writes >Counting cross-imp : > >What is the best method of counting average in form >60% 40% or 60% 50% etc , with 20-25 tables and 20 rounds of 1 board ? I award +2/-2 for 60/40 at Butler and cross-imps. Butler and cross- imps are pretty close, and I am convinced +2 for 60% is correct at Butler. cheers john > >Bye >ENNIO NARDULLO -- 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 May 22 09:04:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LN3hV01053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:03:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LN3Mt00983 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:03:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-30.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.30]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2AC7053B21 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 23:41:00 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] claiming out of turn Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 23:37:35 +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: <3B04F8EC.FF90A9A6@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael (Fri 18 May 2001 11:27): >>Brambledown wrote: >> The vital difference is that when a card which declarer thought >> was a winner is ruffed by a 'non-existent' trump it provides a >> massive 'alarm call' for him. When he is merely running off >> the winners he has announced he will take, no alarms will ring, >> and there is no reason to believe he will be thinking about >> anything other than the mechanics of, for example, leading >> from the correct hand and naming the correct card. A player >> who claims believes that, effectively, the hand is over. >> If he had wanted more time to consider how to play the hand, >> he would not have claimed. > > When considering a bridge hand, there come two moments. > > One is the "ah" moment, the one when everything is resolved. > View-graph commentators often describe this as "declarer leans > forward - play is about to end". It is the moment when declarer > (or sometimes defender) has noticed that play is finished. > > And then there is the "working out" moment. > It is the realization of this play. It contains the > analysis of the play, followed by the execution. That can > be by actually playing the cards, or by ordering them in > hand and then spreading them, or by simply showing the hand > and issuing a complete claims statement. Much depends on what you mean by "working out". If the "ah" moment is when declarer's body language indicates that play is about to end, then what should occur between the "ah" moment and the point of claiming should be a "checking or verification period". In these few seconds the claimer should be mentally running through his proposed line to ensure, before he commits himself, that he hasn't overlooked something. If OTOH by "working out" you mean considering alternative lines of play then, by your own definition, the "ah" moment has not yet been reached. The hand we have been discussing is: >> Contract is 3 NT. Opening lead is a small diamond. >> AKxx QJx >> KQJ xxxx >> xx AKx >> Kxxx Axx >> Declarer sees the diamond lead and immediately says "I'll take >> my 9 top tricks in spades, diamonds and clubs and give you the rest". If declarer has reached his "ah" moment based on cashing his S, D & H winners he is seriously in error. Playing on hearts to establish two winners in that suit while the other suits are stopped is not a *minor deviation* from the declared line - it is a quite different game plan not apparently envisaged by the declarer at the moment of claim. >It is IMO clear that when we have established that a player >has claimed BEFORE working out the actual play, that we >should allow him, in our "fictitious" play that we shall >ascribe to him, to begin with such an analysis. It is then >that the alarm bells will sound. You appear to take the view that, provided the right line is reasonably straightforward, claimer can go from "ah" to "claim" without bothering to "work out the actual play". When this goes wrong, you will then as TD deem that he would have found the right line because it would have been irrational for him not to do so. OTOH, I think that if declarer's claim is sloppy, the NOS are entitled to the benefit of the assumption that his play might well have been just as sloppy. >Can you not see that this Belgian player did not work out >how he should play if they return a spade ? ... The rest of your post is meaningless in the context of the hand under discussion, as you are now once again referring to a different hand, upon which I have not ventured an opinion. 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 May 22 09:13:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LNDQP03329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:13:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4LND4t03324 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:13:05 +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 JAA29829 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:17:44 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:03:51 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:10:34 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/05/2001 09:08:15 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Bd. 7 S. 10862 >Dlr: South H. 10 >Vul: Both D. Q83 > C. QJ983 >S. A93 S. KQ54 >H. 4 H. AQ98 >D. K765 D. AJ104 >C. A10652 C. 7 > S. J7 > H. KJ76532 > D. 92 > C. K4 > > W N E S > 2H (weak) > X (1) > P P X All pass >(1) Double out of rotation. > > South did not accept the out of rotation double by East. So under >L32A, East's double was cancelled and West has to pass whenever it is >his turn to call. Therefore, West passed, so North and East doubled >again and everyone passed. 2HX went down 4 (partly due to a bad play by >South), +1100 to E/W. N/S was unhappy with this result. I will award N/S an adjusted handkerchief to cry into, but nothing else, under the current Laws. There does seem to be a reasonable case for the 2007 Laws to give a different ruling. An insufficient bid can be corrected to anything *except* a double. Therefore, perhaps L32A should similarly specify that an out-of-rotation double can be also be restricted in its correction to anything *except* another double. What do you think, ton and Grattan? Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 09:18:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LNHhE03365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:17:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4LNHHt03360 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:17:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.4.178] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 151yuj-0000tD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 00:16:38 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c0e24b$f0a76260$b2047ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:15:32 +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: > Bd. 7 S. 10862 > Dlr: South H. 10 > Vul: Both D. Q83 > C. QJ983 > S. A93 S. KQ54 > H. 4 H. AQ98 > D. K765 D. AJ104 > C. A10652 C. 7 > S. J7 > H. KJ76532 > D. 92 > C. K4 > > W N E S > 2H (weak) > X (1) > P P X All pass > (1) Double out of rotation. > > South did not accept the out of rotation double by East. So under > L32A, East's double was cancelled and West has to pass whenever it is > his turn to call. Therefore, West passed, so North and East doubled > again and everyone passed. 2HX went down 4 (partly due to a bad play by > South), +1100 to E/W. N/S was unhappy with this result. Well, it was all North's fault. He should not have doubled. One imagines, however, that Law 23 might be deemed to cover this 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 May 22 09:51:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LNpGt03607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:51:16 +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 f4LNp8t03602 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:51:09 +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 QAA25846; Mon, 21 May 2001 16:50:27 -0700 Message-Id: <200105212350.QAA25846@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 May 2001 23:48:24 BST." Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:50:27 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > In article , David Stevenson > writes > > > >Bd. 7 S. 10862 > >Dlr: South H. 10 > >Vul: Both D. Q83 > > C. QJ983 > >S. A93 S. KQ54 > >H. 4 H. AQ98 > >D. K765 D. AJ104 > >C. A10652 C. 7 > > S. J7 > > H. KJ76532 > > D. 92 > > C. K4 > > > > W N E S > > 2H (weak) > > X (1) > > P P X All pass > >(1) Double out of rotation. > > > > I think it's in the same class as the Rottweiller coup (2nd seat multi > OOT on a 1 count). I remove the double (L72B1). cheers john It's clear to me that L72B1 applies, but is removing the double enough? L72B1 calls for an adjusted score, and L12C1 requires adjusting to the most/least favorable score that was probable/at all likely if the infraction had not occurred. So what would have happened if East had waited his turn like he was supposed to? Would East have balanced with a double? Or passed? Or tried 2NT? Some roads would certainly have led to 3NT by either E or W, with only 8 tricks if declarer misguesses diamonds . . . unless South has to give them the 9th trick in hearts or North has to give it to them in clubs . . . E-W can set up an extra trick in hearts, but only by giving South two hearts---can they take two clubs and a diamond quickly enough? This looks like a difficult hand to analyze, and I don't feel like doing it right now. I can accept John's result, because my gut feeling is that 3NT is likely enough to make; but I'm wondering whether E/W -100, or some weighting of -100 and +400 (for 2H -4), is the correct result . . . -- 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 May 22 09:54:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4LNrti03632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:53:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4LNrXt03624 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:53:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.4.178] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 151zTp-00018l-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 00:52:53 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01c0e251$0104e420$b2047ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:51:47 +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 Ed wrote: > At 1:20 PM +0100 5/21/01, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >In the QT98 situation at trick 9 we have discussed elsewhere, this > >applies, and I feel the balance of doubt has shifted against the > >claimer. Law 70C must be applied. > > FWIW, I agree. :-) For what it isn't worth, I think that (although I regard any regulation that allows Herman to play the hand instead of me as dubious in the extreme), the "top down" rule is sensible enough. At least it is an attempt to define in practical terms what is meant by the word "irrational", instead of the current position, which was best summarised by Ian Crorie in a recent post: an irrational play is one that not even the most hopeless director would find with sight of all four hands, however likely it might be to be found by a world-class declarer with sight of only two. > >In the Trick 1 7NT claim, declarer has 13 tricks and there is no element > >of doubt he will make 13. Had he cashed 4 top hearts and then claimed, > >saying "rest of the hearts and the diamonds I would rule against him, > >but unless this is the scenario it is not "a doubtful point [to be] ... > >resolved against claimer". Law 70A gives claimer the benefit. > > Eggzackly! Not exactly at all. The trouble with all this "from the point at which the claim statement breaks down" gibberish is that it leads to the most God-awful inequities. Consider 10987 None AKxx Axxx AKQJ AKQJ10xx x x South, declarer in seven spades, wins the opening club lead in dummy and announces that he will draw trumps and run hearts, making fourteen tricks (we may assume that he shares a sense of humour with the Dutchman who featured in a recent claim on this list). Now: (A) Spades are 5-0, but hearts are 3-3. Herman and others will happily rule that declarer will cash one top spade and, on seeing an opponent show out, fall back on his only chance, which is to cash three hearts and cross-ruff. To do otherwise, you see, would be "irrational", despite the fact that this line would be wholly beyond at least 80% of bridge players, who would throw the hand in for some number down after trick two. (B) Spades are 4-1, but hearts are 6-0. Herman and others will happily rule that declarer is one down; they will not let him ruff a heart in dummy after one round of trumps, despite this being (a) 100% for the contract; (b) not in any way as difficult as the winning line in (A) above. They will make him follow his claim statement, for it will not "break down" until the first round of hearts, by which time it will be too late. Yet it is far more likely that a mugwump declarer will draw one round of trumps (all following) and then ruff a heart than that a mugwump declarer will draw one round of trumps (West discarding) and then cross-ruff after three rounds of hearts. Worse, (A) above may actually be broken down into two sub-cases: West has five spades (now hearts can break anyhow, and a "rational" declarer will still make); or East has five spades, in which case hearts 3-3 is a requirement for success. On the "principle" that it is irrational not to over-ruff a trump that you don't believe exists, declarer will be deemed to make his contract in (a) but not in (b). This is, of course, ridiculous. What subscribers to this list appear to me to have lost sight of completely is the following: we are all players in the expert class. Thus, when we are called to a table as a director or asked to serve on an AC, we rule according to our knowledge of the game, instead of applying the rules. This simply must not be; in no other sport whatever does the ruling by an umpire depend on the umpire's skill as a player, nor should it. The rules, as I have said many times before, should be such that they can be applied to Mrs Guggenheim and Mr Garozzo equally, without fear or favour, by any director from Kojak to Huggy Bear. 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 May 22 10:11:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4M0A4V03731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 10:10:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4M09st03726 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 10:09:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.4.178] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 151zjf-0002GL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 01:09:16 +0100 Message-ID: <003c01c0e253$4ad65fa0$b2047ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:08:10 +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: > This one, to paraphrase Ton, has to be ruled by the TD 'on the floor' Yes, I know. And as long as the game has to be ruled in this fashion, there is no hope for it. TDs should not have to rule anything "on the floor", as you put it; they should have to go and fetch the rule book, and say: "These are the rules, so this is the ruling". They cannot do this at the moment because the rule book is full of "could have" and "carefully" and "for the class of player involved". So they go and get the rule book (or at least some of them do), and then they say: "Well, I am not sure what these words mean, so I am going to consider that they mean so-and-so, but if you don't like it, you can spend half an hour after the tournament has ended in front of three people who will intimidate you by asking a lot of stupid questions and cause you to miss your last bus home." For some reason, players are not always willing to undergo this experience, so the number of duplicate players continues to decline while their average age continues to increase. 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 May 22 10:45:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4M0hOY03920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 10:43:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4M0hEt03916 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 10:43:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.132.229] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 1520ER-0002Ov-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 01:41:04 +0100 Message-ID: <004801c0e257$bcaf2180$b2047ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> <3B092B75.F290298A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:39:24 +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, no, you are still misunderstanding. Plus ca ne change pas, plus c'est la meme chose. > A player who fails to draw an outstanding trump has made a > mistake that he shall be deemed to continue. Of course he should. There are certain mistakes that are deemed to last for eternity, and there are certain mistakes that are deemed to disappear in a heartbeat. There is no quantitative or qualitative difference between these mistakes - they are all manifestations of exactly the same degree of stupidity - yet there are (or so I am told) sound and abiding reasons why they should be treated differently. You will forgive me if I continue to regard this notion as gibberish, for that is what it most certainly is. > The declarer in Ton's example did NOT make a mistake - he > simply forgot to look. That mistake cannot be continued, as > one must certainly look before playing. And one must not look before claiming, of course. Indeed, if one does, one might make the fatal error of saying what one is going to do. But even in this extreme circumstance, there will always be a friendly director on hand to say that of course one wasn't going to do it at all. > Don't you see that the mistake is not the same ? No, Herman, I don't. And I am very old, so I almost certainly never will. I think that people should pay at least as much attention to their claims of tricks as to their plays to tricks. Indeed, I think they should pay more, for what is clear to them might not be clear to their opponents, and they should be prepared to explain exactly what their claim entails. If an objection is raised to the effect that "you don't have the tricks you've just claimed", I think it absurd for the claimer to be given the opportunity to say: "Of course I wasn't claiming those tricks exactly, for don't you see that I have all these other tricks instead?" You seem to me to be persisting in your view that all claims are wonderful, so that a man who has just made an idiotic claim should be deemed incapable of being about to follow an idiotic line of play. To me, this is not merely nonsensical but counter-sensical (there is no such word, but then again, I have long since become reconciled to the view that discussions about what the Laws of bridge say have nothing to do with what words mean). 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 May 22 11:25:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4M1O2c04180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 11:24:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4M1Nst04176 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 11:23:55 +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 RAA24314 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:23:13 -0800 Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:22:17 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <001a01c0e251$0104e420$b2047ad5@pbncomputer> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 22 May 2001, David Burn wrote: > For what it isn't worth, I think that (although I regard any regulation > that allows Herman to play the hand instead of me as dubious in the > extreme), the "top down" rule is sensible enough. I am inclined to agree. Mostly because I don't have a better suggestion:) Now then, off we go exploring the iniquities of inequity: > Not exactly at all. The trouble with all this "from the point at which > the claim statement breaks down" gibberish is that it leads to the most > God-awful inequities. Consider > > 10987 > None > AKxx > Axxx > > AKQJ > AKQJ10xx > x > x > > South, declarer in seven spades, wins the opening club lead in dummy and > announces that he will draw trumps and run hearts, making fourteen > tricks (we may assume that he shares a sense of humour with the Dutchman > who featured in a recent claim on this list). Now: > [and there is a discussion of why the contract makes if spades are 5-0 and hearts 3-3, but not if spades are 4-1 and hearts 6-0] > This is, of course, ridiculous. What subscribers to this list appear to > me to have lost sight of completely is the following: we are all players > in the expert class. Two observations here. One, I would be pressing my luck to call myself an expert. Better than 90% of the players in the games I direct, yes; but that's more an insult to them than a compliment to me. And not all directors especially at the club or local-tournament level are that well enough. One of the main points of contention when ACBL started using TD-panels to hear appeals was making sure they would consult with players of appropriate skill rather than rely on their own bridge judgment. (And in my area, they are very good about doing the necessary consultation, too.) Two, on the hand in question: For what it is worth, if I were actually playing this hand and discovered the 5-0 trumps, I think I would make it; if I had 4-1 trumps I think I really would pull trump and then go down upon discovering the 6-0 heart break. The ruff-one-heart safety play escaped me. Of course after a claim, declarer is stuck pulling the 4-1 trumps and even if he does know enough to take the safety play he has explicitly stated he isn't going to take it. I am somewhat at a loss as to how to rule on the 5-0 hand. If the hand were slightly different, and declarer had a choice of, say, guaranteeing down one vs attempting to make the contract but risking down 2 or 3 by so doing - I'd be comfortable assigning whichever of these led to a worse result. As it is..... I confess I can't see the play going any other way after a claim and a discovery of 5-0 trumps.... so I feel like making 7 in case A and down 1 in case B really may be right. Ruling down 3 (play off 4 round of trump, cash winners, defence gets long spade + 2 clubs) seems... well... irrational. If declarer had claimed without a statement.... gee.... I'm forced reluctantly to admit I'd rule making 7 in either case, being unwilling to force declarer into a line that can never gain. But I'd hate it! > Thus, when we are called to a table as a director > or asked to serve on an AC, we rule according to our knowledge of the > game, instead of applying the rules. This simply must not be; in no > other sport whatever does the ruling by an umpire depend on the umpire's > skill as a player, nor should it. The rules, as I have said many times > before, should be such that they can be applied to Mrs Guggenheim and Mr > Garozzo equally, without fear or favour, by any director from Kojak to > Huggy Bear. > I agree with the essential point that the rules should be applied equally to all. I disagree that we have a serious problem with "the umpire's skill as a player" resulting in bad bridge rulings; it is the umpire's imperfect assessment of the claimer's skill that scares me - and the fact that the "right" ruling on this sort of a hand depends heavily on what the TD thinks the player capable of. 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 May 22 13:08:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4M36GF04897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 13:06:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f4M35vt04890 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 13:05:59 +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 1522U2-000GBy-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 03:05:18 +0000 Message-ID: <7pI+9JATcdC7EwR1@asimere.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 04:03:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> <003c01c0e253$4ad65fa0$b2047ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <003c01c0e253$4ad65fa0$b2047ad5@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 <003c01c0e253$4ad65fa0$b2047ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >John wrote: > >> This one, to paraphrase Ton, has to be ruled by the TD 'on the floor' > >Yes, I know. And as long as the game has to be ruled in this fashion, >there is no hope for it. TDs should not have to rule anything "on the >floor", as you put it; they should have to go and fetch the rule book, >and say: "These are the rules, so this is the ruling". They cannot do >this at the moment because the rule book is full of "could have" and >"carefully" and "for the class of player involved". So they go and get >the rule book (or at least some of them do), and then they say: "Well, I >am not sure what these words mean, so I am going to consider that they >mean so-and-so, but if you don't like it, you can spend half an hour >after the tournament has ended in front of three people who will >intimidate you by asking a lot of stupid questions and cause you to miss >your last bus home." For some reason, players are not always willing to >undergo this experience, so the number of duplicate players continues to >decline while their average age continues to increase. > I agree, of course, but umpires have to umpire, and have to do it from the book, however much they dislike it. I rule from the book, (even if I don't always read from it) much as I dislike some of the book's words. cheers john >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 14:47:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4M4fms17012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 14:41:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4M4ewt16921 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 14:41:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 21:36:13 -0700 Message-ID: <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 21:35:07 -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 > > > >David, you are writing new law. A pair can confer when determining > >whether an opposing claim is valid. > > No, I am not writing new Law. Try reading L70A. Don't see anything there prohibiting a discussion between a claimer's opponents. > > >Judging such things based on "class of player involved" is an > >elitist notion that does not belong in the Laws, and is not in this > >particular law (L70). > > Well, it is in the ACBL version of the Laws. For the claimer, and for acquiescing/conceding opponents, but not for opponents contesting a claim. > > >I have not participated in the "irrational" discussion, but have the > >opinion that someone who doesn't know who is involved should decide > >whether a line of play is irrational, and "the class of player > >involved" should be erased from the next version of the Laws. There > >is no objective measure of "class," other than for well-known > >experts, who thereby get an unfair advantage in disputed claims. > > This is not true. Directors consider the class of player involved in > claims, and it works both ways. > The "normal" language in the footnotes does not apply to the play of a contesting pair, and such an extension is unwarranted. Okay David, have the last word, I don't mind. 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 May 22 15:09:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4M58Hp23795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:08:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4M588t23755 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:08:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt92v.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.164.95]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA27311 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 01:07:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <017201c0e27d$4c54f740$31a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> <003c01c0e253$4ad65fa0$b2047ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:08:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes: > John wrote: > > > This one, to paraphrase Ton, has to be ruled by the TD 'on the floor' > > Yes, I know. And as long as the game has to be ruled in this fashion, > there is no hope for it. TDs should not have to rule anything "on the > floor", as you put it; they should have to go and fetch the rule book, > and say: "These are the rules, so this is the ruling". They cannot do > this at the moment because the rule book is full of "could have" and > "carefully" and "for the class of player involved". So they go and get > the rule book (or at least some of them do), and then they say: "Well, I > am not sure what these words mean, so I am going to consider that they > mean so-and-so, but if you don't like it, you can spend half an hour > after the tournament has ended in front of three people who will > intimidate you by asking a lot of stupid questions and cause you to miss > your last bus home." For some reason, players are not always willing to > undergo this experience, so the number of duplicate players continues to > decline while their average age continues to increase. > > David Burn > London, England > I find your apraisal spot on. Even strange, arbitraty, and imperfect, "These are the rules, so this is the ruling" as you call it, if clear, would be more bearable than what we often have today. I think this direction in our laws and interpretations would be terrific or better. 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 May 22 17:04:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4M70tv25046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:00:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4M70lt25041 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:00:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-98-35.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.98.35]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4M6xS907333; Tue, 22 May 2001 07:59:28 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003b01c0e28c$c62cd6a0$2362063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" Cc: References: <006501c0e222$f2db5600$b9b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Less (was More) faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 07:39:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Kooijman, A. ; Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Less (was More) faulty directing > > Guidelines will help in all circumstances where TD's > show to need them. And we had several of those in > this problem. > +=+ Well, I have no problem with that. I agree. And since Jose is keen to use the CoP Jurisprudence to provide such guidance via NBOs we can add something into this - provided the WBFLC agrees we have the Law right.+=+ > > If you are able to convince them with law 70E I am > glad to hear that. Let the 'Waynes' speak > +=+ If claimer is entitled to place cards when an opponent would fail to follow suit on any normal line of play, this can surely leave no scope for arguing that he may fail to observe a void through carelessness. The law here stands on the fact that opponent would show out, not at all on whether claimer would notice it. (The only other reminder I would add in parenthesis is that, of course, the heading to Law 70 is not considered part of the law.) +=+ > > (I am not intentionally rude here, though not > intentionally friendly either). > > ton +=+ This last remark puzzles me. I do not understand your point. Rudeness and friendliness do not seem to enter into the equation. (Did you think I was getting at you in some way? - if so you misunderstood.) +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 18:22:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4M8LWB09716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 18:21:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4M8LOt09667 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 18:21:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.120.248] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 1527PG-0000lI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:20:43 +0100 Message-ID: <001401c0e297$f2895740$f8787ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <006501c0e222$f2db5600$b9b5f1c3@kooijman> <003b01c0e28c$c62cd6a0$2362063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Less (was More) faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:19:37 +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 wrote: > +=+ If claimer is entitled to place cards when > an opponent would fail to follow suit on any > normal line of play, this can surely leave no > scope for arguing that he may fail to observe > a void through carelessness. I think that this means: it is irrational not to notice an opponent show out of a suit. I have myself not noticed an opponent show out of a suit in the past; so have my partners; so has just about every bridge player on the planet. Now, when I do this, I do not think to myself "I must have been insane"; rather, I think "that was careless of me". When my partner does it, I do not think "that was an irrational act"; rather, I think "that was a careless thing to do". Moreover, I find it very difficult to imagine that my reaction is in any way unusual - do you, when you see a player miscount, or fail to observe, the cards played, think "there is a lunatic"? Or do you think "there is someone who has just been careless"? If we would use the word "careless" rather than the word "irrational" in common parlance to describe what is, after all, a fairly common occurrence, by what process of reasoning do we describe the occurrence as "irrational" rather than "careless" when we are making a ruling based on it? And, as I have enquired before, by what linguistic sophistry has the word "irrational" become synonymous with the words "very careless"? 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 May 22 19:17:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4M94kU21132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 19:04:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from camelia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-10.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.59]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4M94At21043 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 19:04:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from citronier.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.222) by camelia.wanadoo.fr; 22 May 2001 11:03:25 +0200 Received: from beauvillain (193.249.227.135) by citronier.wanadoo.fr; 22 May 2001 11:02:58 +0200 Message-ID: <008701c0e29d$765ca5e0$87e3f9c1@beauvillain> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" Subject: Re : [BLML] Double out of turn Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:59:08 +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 Hello, This is an exam subject for TD (we got nearly the same in Milano). L32 A, Double is cancelled, partner must pass. Always. So bidding goes P P X, P P P But, we have a note to look L23 L23 : Damaging enforced pass : Of course! East could have known it was good to him that his partner must pass! Not that he made it deliberatly, but just "could have known". The damage is just because West must pass. So look to 72B1 We must give an adjusted score to both side. Could be 2H-3, 300 EW because when you are not doubled, you don't panic and made your tricks (??) Could be 400 EW as well, but it's advantaging offending side, I don't like! Of course, not 3NT making EW,, because 600EW is much too good, but if you have a bad feeling about East, you can rule 3NT minus 1, 100 NS because if you miss the DQ, you can go down. It's probable/possible. You can also split scores : EW lose 100 & NS lose 3/400 (400 in this case). My feeling is between 100NS and 300 EW, probably the last one if E was really sleeping. 300 EW is fair for everybody and they can go to AC after all, Olivier. Kenavo A+OB Tout sur le bridge en Bretagne ... et ailleurs sur www.bretagnebridgecomite.com ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 3:39 PM Subject: [BLML] Double out of turn > > Bd. 7 S. 10862 > Dlr: South H. 10 > Vul: Both D. Q83 > C. QJ983 > S. A93 S. KQ54 > H. 4 H. AQ98 > D. K765 D. AJ104 > C. A10652 C. 7 > S. J7 > H. KJ76532 > D. 92 > C. K4 > > W N E S > 2H (weak) > X (1) > P P X All pass > (1) Double out of rotation. > > South did not accept the out of rotation double by East. So under > L32A, East's double was cancelled and West has to pass whenever it is > his turn to call. Therefore, West passed, so North and East doubled > again and everyone passed. 2HX went down 4 (partly due to a bad play by > South), +1100 to E/W. N/S was unhappy with this result. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 19:47:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4M9DZd23276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 19:13:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4M9D8t23205 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 19:13:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4M9CPr04126 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 10:12:25 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:12 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing 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: <005f01c0e212$99f91320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > > > > I'm not sure how you can "take less notice". There is a line on > > which the claim fails and there are two key possibilities. 1) The > > declarer will notice the line eventually or 2) the declarer will > > stumble blindly onto the line by accident (I have seen clueless > > declarers execute squeeze > > endplays without knowing what they are doing). In either case > > this is surely a "doubtful point to be ruled against claimer". To me > > it is directly analogous to a claim by declarer where one defender > > says "If my partner....". We don't normally worry about whether > > partner is good enough to do X, we just assume that they will. > > Personally I might make an exception in either case if the less > > experienced partner volunteered "I wouldn't play like that" but not > > otherwise. > > With all hands exposed on the table after a claim is contested, > either partner (including the one who was dummy) can point out a > line of play that would invalidate the claim. It follows that > partners can confer on the matter. Nothing in L70B suggests that > "the class of player involved" should be a consideration. Also, > statements against self-interest should be ignored. Either a line of > play that invalidates a claim is found, or it is not. The TD has > nothing to decide unless L70C/D/E is involved. The idea that statements against self-interest should be ignored is rubbish which has no place in the laws. The TD is supposed to collect evidence and make a judgment designed to restore equity. Statements by the players, whether self-serving or against self interest are part of that evidence and must be taken into account (the TD *may* attach a sufficiently low weight to such statements that they do not affect the ruling but is not obliged so to do). Equity is not served by awarding one side a good score they know they would never have got. If the TD determines that a particular line would never be found at the table then there are no "doubtful points" to be resolved against claimer. > > Take Marv's example where the claimer could be reduced to DA, HKx > and > > endplayed. Sure it may be unlikely that declarer will find the > endplay > > but it is also possible that claimer will reduce to DA2,HK in an > attempt > > to avoid the "obvious" endplay and declarer will cash HA and see > be > > surprised when HK drops. > > With all cards exposed on the table, as is required, declarer should > have no problem. Nevertheless, dummy is allowed to point out a line I think my wife would probably get a 3 card end position right with all cards exposed. I know she wouldn't spot the approaching position with say 3 more clubs still to be cashed. I doubt she would find the diamond exit if it was needed but she just might (so I would object to the claim as dummy). I am certain that if she told the TD she wasn't going to find the winning play neither she, nor I, would wish to receive a score based on her statement being ignored. I hope I would be permitted an appeal. > of declarer play that invalidates the claim. There is no need for a > TD to divine "what would have happened" if the deal were to be > played out when the declaring side says "This would have happened." > (Subject to L70C/D/E, of course.) You are correct that the TD does not have to divine "what would have happened". However, he is obliged to decide "what he thinks might have happened" and rule against claimer if one of the possibilities is the claim being broken. 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 May 22 20:02:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4M9Dce23288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 19:13:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4M9D8t23204 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 19:13:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4M9CRD04166 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 10:12:27 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:12 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing 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: <001a01c0e251$0104e420$b2047ad5@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > > Not exactly at all. The trouble with all this "from the point at which > the claim statement breaks down" gibberish is that it leads to the most > God-awful inequities. Consider > > 10987 > None > AKxx > Axxx > > AKQJ > AKQJ10xx > x > x > > South, declarer in seven spades, wins the opening club lead in dummy and > announces that he will draw trumps and run hearts, making fourteen > tricks (we may assume that he shares a sense of humour with the Dutchman > who featured in a recent claim on this list). Now: > > (A) Spades are 5-0, but hearts are 3-3. Herman and others will happily > rule that declarer will cash one top spade and, on seeing an opponent > show out, fall back on his only chance, which is to cash three hearts > and cross-ruff. To do otherwise, you see, would be "irrational", despite > the fact that this line would be wholly beyond at least 80% of bridge > players, who would throw the hand in for some number down after trick > two. The laws tell us that declarer *will* notice the show-out at trick one. After that it is a judgement issue. If Herman, or indeed any TD, judges that after noticing the show-out the declarer will work out that trumps are 5-0 then they must adjudicate on that basis (this would apply to almost all declarers). If the TD judges that declarer will identify a cross ruff line as the only possibility then he will rule contract made if it works. If he judges that declarer might eg try to throw as many losers as possible on the hearts while then he will rule one off. > (B) Spades are 4-1, but hearts are 6-0. Herman and others will happily > rule that declarer is one down; they will not let him ruff a heart in > dummy after one round of trumps, despite this being (a) 100% for the > contract; (b) not in any way as difficult as the winning line in (A) > above. They will make him follow his claim statement, for it will not > "break down" until the first round of hearts, by which time it will be > too late. Which seems absolutely right. Clearly declarer has not considered the 6-0 break and nothing will happen while drawing trumps to remind him. Of course if the TD judges that declarer will then find the "obvious" squeeze (West has seven clubs) or that the 4 trumps had already squeezed a defender 6-6 in the reds he will still rule 7N=. > Yet it is far more likely that a mugwump declarer will draw > one round of trumps (all following) and then ruff a heart than that a > mugwump declarer will draw one round of trumps (West discarding) and > then cross-ruff after three rounds of hearts. Your judgement differs from mine. I have no doubt that Mr Mugwump might not find the safety play (particularly in the light of his statement). I also know some fairly Mugwumpy declarers who I have no doubt would switch to a cross-ruff line (but they might be careless enough not to cash DAK early). > Worse, (A) above may actually be broken down into two sub-cases: West > has five spades (now hearts can break anyhow, and a "rational" declarer Why. Perhaps with 5 spades in West declarer will cash a few hearts, throwing club losers, and giving West a chance to ditch all his diamonds. I don't think Herman, or anyone else, thinks that "rational" means that declarer will spot every possible flaw in the line they might adopt. Just that if we deem they will spot a particular flaw then we consider adopting such a line irrational. > will still make); or East has five spades, in which case hearts 3-3 is a > requirement for success. On the "principle" that it is irrational not to > over-ruff a trump that you don't believe exists, declarer will be deemed > to make his contract in (a) but not in (b). It is definitely irrational to believe a trump doesn't exist when said trump appears on the table in front of you. 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 May 22 20:29:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MASoX10609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 20:28:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4MASNt10477 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 20:28:25 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 68E042A4622; Tue, 22 May 2001 12:27:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 9E6772A4C2E for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 12:27:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 3002 invoked from network); 22 May 2001 10:27:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 22 May 2001 10:27:36 -0000 Message-ID: <3B0A3ECF.5090508@interia.pl> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:26:23 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: aa404acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Bd. 7 S. 10862 > Dlr: South H. 10 > Vul: Both D. Q83 > C. QJ983 > S. A93 S. KQ54 > H. 4 H. AQ98 > D. K765 D. AJ104 > C. A10652 C. 7 > S. J7 > H. KJ76532 > D. 92 > C. K4 > > W N E S > 2H (weak) > X (1) > P P X All pass > (1) Double out of rotation. [SNIP] This seems to me to be a typical "could have known" case. We don't allow East to double 2H, that's for sure. The big question is what we adjust to. For East - West I would adjust to 3NT -1, this certainly looks like " the most unfavourable result that was at all probable". For North - South it's more difficult. I would welcome information if this was MPs or IMPs; I think this might well affect East's choice what to do after 2H is passed back to him and the percentages if we decide to award a weighted score. David? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -------R--E--K--L--A--M--A------- 7 stówek za kartkê pocztow¹!!! http://kartki.interia.pl/konkurs/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 21:21:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MBLLw20218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 21:21:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MBL9t20163 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 21:21:11 +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 NAA00418; Tue, 22 May 2001 13:16:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA09468; Tue, 22 May 2001 13:19:56 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010522132416.007f0100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:24:16 +0200 To: "larry bennett" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Kooijman, A." , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Less (was More) faulty directing In-Reply-To: <002e01c0e225$376977a0$84b2883e@default> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <003f01c0e207$a9a0a5a0$9d337bd5@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 19:37 21/05/01 +0100, larry bennett wrote: >I remember (long ago) a directing course when we >were asked to rule on a situation where the >auction had gone 2D (strong) 3D (positive) 6NT >unapposed. Declarer ducked the first trick Then >claimed on a "cross-ruff'. >The opinions varied enormously. AG : that's a strange claim indeed. How can the declarer know that, after ducking from, say, Axx facing xx, the second trick in the suit won't be ruffed by the defense ? My guess would have been that he meant something else ; perhaps he used the wrong word. In this case, the director should ask him what he meant. If he *meant* cross-ruffing, he may be subject to losing several tricks (make him play the first tricks as for a cross-ruff, only then discovering there was not any trump to use). If he meant unblocking, or whatever, test that line of play. Yes, a declarer should be allowed to correct a slip of the tongue in the claim, as in naming a card. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 21:36:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MBaY223850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 21:36:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MBa8t23843 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 21:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA04637; Tue, 22 May 2001 13:35:12 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA19379; Tue, 22 May 2001 13:34:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010522133914.00843a00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:39:14 +0200 To: "David Burn" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Less (was More) faulty directing In-Reply-To: <001401c0e297$f2895740$f8787ad5@pbncomputer> References: <006501c0e222$f2db5600$b9b5f1c3@kooijman> <003b01c0e28c$c62cd6a0$2362063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:19 22/05/01 +0100, David Burn wrote: > >If we would use the word "careless" rather than the word "irrational" in >common parlance to describe what is, after all, a fairly common >occurrence, by what process of reasoning do we describe the occurrence >as "irrational" rather than "careless" when we are making a ruling based >on it? And, as I have enquired before, by what linguistic sophistry has >the word "irrational" become synonymous with the words "very careless"? AG : good question. My guess is that the answer is 'it is the only way to restrict accurately the field of possibilities'. To mix up one conventional bidding sequence with another is careless, not irrational ; however, you will never take into account, when adjudicating a MI problem, the fact that the OS could have had a system mixup. Whether that should apply here is another matter. I'd say there are a continuous field of wrong actions ; we are asked to place a border that separates the bad from the irrational, and perhaps it's difficult, but there is no other way out ; some points on my scale, from bad to absurd, could be : 1 - not looking at the exact height of small cards played 2 - not noticing the fall of a honor card 3 - not noticing someone has revoked (you have 8 cards, play 3 rounds , nobody follows to the 3rd round) 4 - miscounting a suit in the general case 5 - not noticing someone doens't follow suit (in the future of the hand) 6 - not having noticed someone didn't follow suit (in the past of the hand), thus not taking a marked finesse 7 - having a system mixup 8 - revoking It has been continuous jurisprudency that item # 6 is irrational, and surely #7 and #8 aren't taken into account in the list of possible actions ; your claim is that #5 is on the other side of the border between bad and absurd ; I'd be prone to agree, but surely someone's mileage varies. Best regards, Alain. >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 21:46:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MBk1723912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 21:46:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MBjlt23908 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 21:45:48 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4MBj8O04275 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 12:45:08 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:45 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn 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: Probst wrote: > In article , David Stevenson > writes > > > >Bd. 7 S. 10862 > >Dlr: South H. 10 > >Vul: Both D. Q83 > > C. QJ983 > >S. A93 S. KQ54 > >H. 4 H. AQ98 > >D. K765 D. AJ104 > >C. A10652 C. 7 > > S. J7 > > H. KJ76532 > > D. 92 > > C. K4 > > > > W N E S > > 2H (weak) > > X (1) > > P P X All pass > >(1) Double out of rotation. > > > > I think it's in the same class as the Rottweiller coup (2nd seat multi > OOT on a 1 count). I remove the double (L72B1). cheers john I disagreed with that ruling too (although I think it was closer than this one). I ask myself "Would a player with this hand wish to bar partner before hearing from him and unilaterally impose a penalty double?" since my answer is "No" I will not apply the "could have known" principle. I am sure that East is aware that this will be the best action on some hands but equally sure he would believe it against the odds. I'll reconsider if East badly needs a swing. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 21:49:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MBnpP24689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 21:49:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MBngt24631 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 21:49:43 +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 NAA06601; Tue, 22 May 2001 13:48:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA29992; Tue, 22 May 2001 13:48:29 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010522135249.00843450@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:52:49 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200105212350.QAA25846@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 16:50 21/05/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >John Probst wrote: > >> In article , David Stevenson >> writes >> > >> >Bd. 7 S. 10862 >> >Dlr: South H. 10 >> >Vul: Both D. Q83 >> > C. QJ983 >> >S. A93 S. KQ54 >> >H. 4 H. AQ98 >> >D. K765 D. AJ104 >> >C. A10652 C. 7 >> > S. J7 >> > H. KJ76532 >> > D. 92 >> > C. K4 >> > >> > W N E S >> > 2H (weak) >> > X (1) >> > P P X All pass >> >(1) Double out of rotation. >> > > >This looks like a difficult hand to analyze, and I don't feel like >doing it right now. I can accept John's result, because my gut >feeling is that 3NT is likely enough to make; but I'm wondering >whether E/W -100, or some weighting of -100 and +400 (for 2H -4), is >the correct result . . . AG : E/W are not allowed a weighted score, because they should get 'the worst result that is at all possible'. This could be set to -100 (3NT -1) or -200 (6D -2, misguessing DQ) or whatever the TD/AC deems plausible, but never a weighted score. Add to this a substantial PP. As to NS, the best reasonable result seems to be +100, for something (3NT or 4S or 6D) going down. One thing one should not do is to take into account the fact that after his OOT double, East would probably have done such-and-such (eg, passed as the least of evils), because we are asked to consider what would have happened *absent the infraction*. Thus, even if -300 would be a very good result to N/S, it can't be applied, unless you think some people could really have passed in the East seat after 2H-p-p. I don't. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 22:06:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MC5mc29153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 22:05:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4MC5ft29120 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 22:05:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.16.226] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 152Au8-0000sH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 13:04:49 +0100 Message-ID: <001701c0e2b7$40bd1540$0c237ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:03:03 +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 Tim wrote: > > 10987 > > None > > AKxx > > Axxx > > > > AKQJ > > AKQJ10xx > > x > > x > > > > South, declarer in seven spades, wins the opening club lead in dummy and > > announces that he will draw trumps and run hearts, making fourteen > > tricks (we may assume that he shares a sense of humour with the Dutchman > > who featured in a recent claim on this list). Now: > > > > (A) Spades are 5-0, but hearts are 3-3. Herman and others will happily > > rule that declarer will cash one top spade and, on seeing an opponent > > show out, fall back on his only chance, which is to cash three hearts > > and cross-ruff. To do otherwise, you see, would be "irrational", despite > > the fact that this line would be wholly beyond at least 80% of bridge > > players, who would throw the hand in for some number down after trick > > two. > > The laws tell us that declarer *will* notice the show-out at trick one. The issue is not whether an opponent shows out of spades; the issue is that once West has done this, East must be presumed to have heart length. Now, Law 70E refers to "a specific card"; it does not appear to me to cover a case such as this, where the "unstated line of play" relies on an opponent's having a certain number of cards in a suit, regardless of what those cards are. This is a peripheral matter, but I suppose Grattan might care to give it some thought. > After that it is a judgement issue. If Herman, or indeed any TD, judges > that after noticing the show-out the declarer will work out that trumps > are 5-0 then they must adjudicate on that basis (this would apply to > almost all declarers). If the TD judges that declarer will identify a > cross ruff line as the only possibility then he will rule contract made if > it works. If he judges that declarer might eg try to throw as many losers > as possible on the hearts while then he will rule one off. The difficulty with all of this is that all declarers are very good at knowing exactly how they would have played once the flaw in a claim has been revealed to them. If, as not infrequently happens, declarer is a better player than the director, he will have no difficulty in convincing the official that of course, he would have cashed the minor-suit winners early and then played the cross-ruff line. After all, the de Wael principle that it is irrational to go down in a contract you could have made must apply universally, or not at all. But rulings should not depend on the relative abilities of the director and the players, nor should a director be placed in the position of having to say to a player: "In my opinion, you would have played badly". > > (B) Spades are 4-1, but hearts are 6-0. Herman and others will happily > > rule that declarer is one down; they will not let him ruff a heart in > > dummy after one round of trumps, despite this being (a) 100% for the > > contract; (b) not in any way as difficult as the winning line in (A) > > above. They will make him follow his claim statement, for it will not > > "break down" until the first round of hearts, by which time it will be > > too late. > Which seems absolutely right. Clearly declarer has not considered the 6-0 > break and nothing will happen while drawing trumps to remind him. Nonsense. When an opponent shows out on the second round of trumps, declarer is quite likely to be "reminded" that he might need to ruff a heart in dummy before drawing the third and fourth rounds. > Your judgement differs from mine. Yes, I know it does. That is why it is very silly indeed to have a situation in which your rulings will differ from mine because they are made on the basis of our differing judgements. > It is definitely irrational to believe a trump doesn't exist when said > trump appears on the table in front of you. Again, the word "irrational" does not mean "very careless". An old trick that still works is for a defender to play the king in front of dummy's AQ when declarer is about to take a finesse; if the declarer is not paying attention, then he will play the queen anyway. Would you say that such a declarer had been "irrational", or would you describe his action as a piece of carelessness? If you are not expecting there to be a trump outstanding, it is entirely conceivable that its significance will not register on you when it is played. 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 May 22 22:13:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MCCpj01123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 22:12:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MCCUt01058 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 22:12:32 +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 f4MCBnE16969 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:11:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010522075304.00af9d10@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, 22 May 2001 08:12:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:39 AM 5/21/01, David wrote: >Bd. 7 S. 10862 >Dlr: South H. 10 >Vul: Both D. Q83 > C. QJ983 >S. A93 S. KQ54 >H. 4 H. AQ98 >D. K765 D. AJ104 >C. A10652 C. 7 > S. J7 > H. KJ76532 > D. 92 > C. K4 > > W N E S > 2H (weak) > X (1) > P P X All pass >(1) Double out of rotation. > > South did not accept the out of rotation double by East. So under >L32A, East's double was cancelled and West has to pass whenever it is >his turn to call. Therefore, West passed, so North and East doubled >again and everyone passed. 2HX went down 4 (partly due to a bad play by >South), +1100 to E/W. N/S was unhappy with this result. I'd let the score stand. E "could have known... that the irregularity would have been likely to damage the NOS" [L72B1], but that would mean that E determined that it would be to his advantage to defend 2HX rather than compete for the contract. That being the case, the most likely auction absent the irregularity would have been 2H-X-P-P-P. I would therefore find that the OS did not "gain[] an advantage through the irregularity". The subtle point here is that we assume that W would have taken his most likely action. This is not a UI case; the law does not direct us to consider W's LAs. Of course, I'd be ruling in a jurisdiction that has opted out of L12C3. If L12C3 were operative, I'd wouldn't be unhappy with a ruling along the lines of 75% 2HX, 25% 2H, or some such. 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 May 22 22:58:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MCwP312929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 22:58:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4MCw5t12925 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 22:58:06 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA30041; Tue, 22 May 2001 14:57:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue May 22 14:56:40 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 <01K3V9Y0OXN0006WA3@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 22 May 2001 14:56:46 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 14:55:45 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:56:41 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B867@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 > An old trick > that still works is for a defender to play the king in front > of dummy's > AQ when declarer is about to take a finesse; if the declarer is not > paying attention, then he will play the queen anyway. Would > you say that > such a declarer had been "irrational", or would you describe > his action > as a piece of carelessness? If you are not expecting there to > be a trump > outstanding, it is entirely conceivable that its significance will not > register on you when it is played. > Is it possible to think along the following lines? Let me start with something else: you play in a lottery with 10.000.000 numbers (tickets) of which you bought one. I consider it irrational to expect you to win this lottery. But if you win you will probably collect the money, not considering it an irrational outcome anymore. Yes playing the queen under the king happens once in while and if so it could be called careless. But taking into account the varity of possible plays included in normal this queen under the king is not involved, nor is a revoke or playing the 10 from AKQ109. From an expectancy point of view it is not normal. The chance is too small. Once happened the chance doesn't play a role anymore. May be we should call this the law of non-coincidence: it will not happen the moment you look at the system. 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 Tue May 22 23:43:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MDgc413205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 23:42:38 +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-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 f4MDgNt13191 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 23:42:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-238.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.238]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4MDffc12029 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:41:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B0A3B78.C374DE43@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:12:08 +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 out of turn References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown wrote: > > > > > When considering a bridge hand, there come two moments. > > > > One is the "ah" moment, the one when everything is resolved. > > View-graph commentators often describe this as "declarer leans > > forward - play is about to end". It is the moment when declarer > > (or sometimes defender) has noticed that play is finished. > > > > And then there is the "working out" moment. > > It is the realization of this play. It contains the > > analysis of the play, followed by the execution. That can > > be by actually playing the cards, or by ordering them in > > hand and then spreading them, or by simply showing the hand > > and issuing a complete claims statement. > > Much depends on what you mean by "working out". If the "ah" moment is when > declarer's body language indicates that play is about to end, then what > should occur between the "ah" moment and the point of claiming should be a > "checking or verification period". In these few seconds the claimer should > be mentally running through his proposed line to ensure, before he commits > himself, that he hasn't overlooked something. You said it Chas : SHOULD. What we are dealing with is how to rule for a declarer who has not done this action. Of course a declarer should do this, and if there is any normal line that he has overlooked, then he should pay the penalty. But not if there is some irrational line that he has overlooked. You - and others - assume that it is irrational to claim at such a time, and therefore, irrational lines become "normal". I - and many others - see these kinds of claims as "careless", and so claimer should be held to careless playing, just as in any claims adjudication. You are including in your adjudication some lines that can only be described as irrational, and that is where you are wrong. > If OTOH by "working out" you > mean considering alternative lines of play then, by your own definition, the > "ah" moment has not yet been reached. > > The hand we have been discussing is: > > >> Contract is 3 NT. Opening lead is a small diamond. > >> AKxx QJx > >> KQJ xxxx > >> xx AKx > >> Kxxx Axx > >> Declarer sees the diamond lead and immediately says "I'll take > >> my 9 top tricks in spades, diamonds and clubs and give you the rest". > > If declarer has reached his "ah" moment based on cashing his S, D & H > winners he is seriously in error. Playing on hearts to establish two > winners in that suit while the other suits are stopped is not a *minor > deviation* from the declared line - it is a quite different game plan not > apparently envisaged by the declarer at the moment of claim. > There are two moments in this play : the 'ah' moment : this contract is safe. And the 'ok' moment : I'll chase the ace of spades and take 10 tricks. If this declarer claims immediately after dummy hits the table, I'd say that he had his 'ah' moment, but not yet his 'ok'. Consider what you would do if playing a speedball (10 mins for 3 boards): you see the dummy, claim, and then work out together with opponents how many tricks you have made. OTOH, if this declarer has had some 'ok' moment, and then he decides that he just needs his top winners and afford to give up the last "4" tricks, then he should be kept to this claim. Now the problem with this claim, as stated above, is that it is not "real". This situation cannot happen in real life. Either the claimer has not had an 'ok' moment, and then his claim statement will not be as complete as the one mentioned above, or he has had it, and he's a lunatic. (and we should rule 8 tricks). Since the example does not come from real life (I guess), it is very hard to give a sensible ruling on. > >It is IMO clear that when we have established that a player > >has claimed BEFORE working out the actual play, that we > >should allow him, in our "fictitious" play that we shall > >ascribe to him, to begin with such an analysis. It is then > >that the alarm bells will sound. > > You appear to take the view that, provided the right line is reasonably > straightforward, claimer can go from "ah" to "claim" without bothering to > "work out the actual play". Well, I'm not saying that he should do this, but it is what happens in real life ! > When this goes wrong, I will rule against claimer by sticking him with all "normal" lines. Usually, one of those will be less that what he was expecting, and less than what he would have got if only he had taken a little more care. That should be enough to show him he should not do this. But in some cases, he gets lucky, and there is no normal line that leads to fewer tricks. I am not going to rule him on irrational lines just because he's lucky ! > you will then as TD > deem that he would have found the right line because it would have been > irrational for him not to do so. No, any normal line - soetimes he's lucky enough that they all work. > OTOH, I think that if declarer's claim is > sloppy, the NOS are entitled to the benefit of the assumption that his play > might well have been just as sloppy. > You said it : JUST as sloppy. You're not ruling this - you're ruling he would play irrationally ! > >Can you not see that this Belgian player did not work out > >how he should play if they return a spade ? ... > > The rest of your post is meaningless in the context of the hand under > discussion, as you are now once again referring to a different hand, upon > which I have not ventured an opinion. > Well, I like that example far better, since it comes from real life ! Maybe you should take a look at it, rather than pontificate on principles that are patently wrong. In all these kinds of discussions, the TD needs to rule on what is normal and what is irrational. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 23:43:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MDgfg13206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 23:42:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MDgQt13193 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 23:42:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-238.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.238]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4MDfkc12104 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:41:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B0A44F4.2C60D46A@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:52:36 +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] More faulty directing References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> <001a01c0e251$0104e420$b2047ad5@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: > > > Not exactly at all. The trouble with all this "from the point at which > the claim statement breaks down" gibberish is that it leads to the most > God-awful inequities. Consider > > 10987 > None > AKxx > Axxx > > AKQJ > AKQJ10xx > x > x > > South, declarer in seven spades, wins the opening club lead in dummy and > announces that he will draw trumps and run hearts, making fourteen > tricks (we may assume that he shares a sense of humour with the Dutchman > who featured in a recent claim on this list). Now: > OK David, I'll take up the challenge. Despite what I've written to Chas recently, and despite this being a non-"real-life" problem, it is a possible one. First of all, let me say that this is a conceivable situation. I could be guilty of this one myself. I analyse the claim statement, and I see that declarer : - did not realise trumps might be 4-1 or 5-0, although he never thought he had 9 of them; - did not realise hearts might not run, also not thinking this could never happen; In fact, it's just what happens in real life (at least to me it does). Now of course if trumps are 3-2, the claim is perfectly valid. So we see what would happen if they are not. It is not, IMO, very important to allow claimer to notice that bad breaks are possible before embarking on playing, so he plays trumps, and it turns out that : > (A) Spades are 5-0 It is ruled irrational to not notice this. The contract is now doomed. Declarer might play better or worse, but I find that giving up, cashing four trumps and wait for hearts to be ruffed to be a normal line. down a lot. > , but hearts are 3-3. Herman and others will happily > rule that declarer will cash one top spade and, on seeing an opponent > show out, fall back on his only chance, which is to cash three hearts > and cross-ruff. To do otherwise, you see, would be "irrational", despite > the fact that this line would be wholly beyond at least 80% of bridge > players, who would throw the hand in for some number down after trick > two. > So would I. Is it really possible to make this contract. Oh yes it is, thank you David. Now do you see why "irrational" needs the "for the class of player involved". You would get the contract if hearts are 3-3, I would go seven down. And so it should be ruled as well, if we had both claimed. I leave it to you to make the decision that you would not have claimed, and that doing so makes you give up your right to be considered of DB's class. It would probably be a good decision as well. > (B) Spades are 4-1, I deem he shall notice this only after the second round. Does your line below still work ? Yes it does. I deem that by now he is wide awake and shall look for other problems as well. He cannot fail to notice that hearts are not solid, and that he needs to ruff one. I deem that this is easy enough for any declarer that can reach seven on just 31HCP to notice, and I think I would rule contract made. But perhaps you know more than I do. > but hearts are 6-0. Herman and others will happily > rule that declarer is one down; they will not let him ruff a heart in > dummy after one round of trumps, two rounds. still 100%, yes ? > despite this being (a) 100% for the > contract; (b) not in any way as difficult as the winning line in (A) > above. They will make him follow his claim statement, for it will not > "break down" until the first round of hearts, by which time it will be > too late. Yet it is far more likely that a mugwump declarer will draw > one round of trumps (all following) and then ruff a heart than that a > mugwump declarer will draw one round of trumps (West discarding) and > then cross-ruff after three rounds of hearts. > > Worse, (A) above may actually be broken down into two sub-cases: West > has five spades (now hearts can break anyhow, and a "rational" declarer > will still make); or East has five spades, in which case hearts 3-3 is a > requirement for success. On the "principle" that it is irrational not to > over-ruff a trump that you don't believe exists, declarer will be deemed > to make his contract in (a) but not in (b). > It is irrational to not know that trumps are 5-0 after playing one round of them. > This is, of course, ridiculous. What subscribers to this list appear to > me to have lost sight of completely is the following: we are all players > in the expert class. Thus, when we are called to a table as a director > or asked to serve on an AC, we rule according to our knowledge of the > game, instead of applying the rules. This simply must not be; in no > other sport whatever does the ruling by an umpire depend on the umpire's > skill as a player, nor should it. The rules, as I have said many times > before, should be such that they can be applied to Mrs Guggenheim and Mr > Garozzo equally, without fear or favour, by any director from Kojak to > Huggy Bear. > I don't believe your fears are warranted. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 22 23:42:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MDgir13207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 23:42:44 +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 f4MDgTt13198 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 23:42:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-238.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.238]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4MDfnc12171 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:41:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B0A46A3.F8411CC8@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:59:47 +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] More faulty directing References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> <003c01c0e253$4ad65fa0$b2047ad5@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: > > John wrote: > > > This one, to paraphrase Ton, has to be ruled by the TD 'on the floor' > > Yes, I know. And as long as the game has to be ruled in this fashion, > there is no hope for it. TDs should not have to rule anything "on the > floor", as you put it; they should have to go and fetch the rule book, > and say: "These are the rules, so this is the ruling". When Ton says, on the floor, he means, by the TD alone, without need for judgment. I think this is the best moment to use the argument I have been waiting for, David. You continually think that the claims laws need improving. I wonder why ? I have calculated that there have been about 1,000,000 bridge hands around the world played today. About half of thse have ended in claims, and a fair number of those claims were faulty, or at the veyr least, contested. Many of the contested ones have been dealt without calling a TD. The players know (more or less) what the claims laws say and they give away some trick they thought they could claim. Mostly correctly. Now do you really believe that in that vast number of contested claims today, there are more than a very few (say 1%) where you and I would arrive at a different solution ? I don't believe so. Now consider MI and UI. On the 1,000,000 hands played today, several thousands reach a director for MI or UI purposes. Do you really believe that if you and I are given those thousands of rulings to make, that we'd get the same result in more than 50% of them? Even if I were to have an excellent player by my side to help me with the analysis. I doubt it. So if you really still believe there is a problem with the game of bridge today, look somewhere else than the claims 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 May 23 00:35:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MEY9V14187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 00:34:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MEXot14125 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 00:33:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4MEXAv26266 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:33:10 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:33 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing 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: <001701c0e2b7$40bd1540$0c237ad5@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > Tim wrote: > > > > 10987 > > > None > > > AKxx > > > Axxx > > > > > > AKQJ > > > AKQJ10xx > > > x > > > x > > > > > > South, declarer in seven spades, wins the opening club lead in dummy > and > > > announces that he will draw trumps and run hearts, making fourteen > > > tricks (we may assume that he shares a sense of humour with the > Dutchman > > > who featured in a recent claim on this list). Now: > > > > > > (A) Spades are 5-0, but hearts are 3-3. Herman and others will > happily > > > rule that declarer will cash one top spade and, on seeing an > opponent > > > show out, fall back on his only chance, which is to cash three > hearts > > > and cross-ruff. To do otherwise, you see, would be "irrational", > despite > > > the fact that this line would be wholly beyond at least 80% of > bridge > > > players, who would throw the hand in for some number down after > trick > > > two. > > > > The laws tell us that declarer *will* notice the show-out at trick > one. > > The issue is not whether an opponent shows out of spades; the issue is > that once West has done this, East must be presumed to have heart > length. Now, Law 70E refers to "a specific card"; it does not appear to > me to cover a case such as this, where the "unstated line of play" > relies on an opponent's having a certain number of cards in a suit, > regardless of what those cards are. This is a peripheral matter, but I > suppose Grattan might care to give it some thought. In this case, and supposing we decide that declarer will spot the Xruff line and no other, it's just a case of either it works or it doesn't. I assume L70E would be invoked if declarer could choose between playing eg Hearts 33 or Hearts 42 West. He would, of course, be deemed to select the non-working one by all of us. > > After that it is a judgement issue. If Herman, or indeed any TD, > judges > > that after noticing the show-out the declarer will work out that > trumps > > are 5-0 then they must adjudicate on that basis (this would apply to > > almost all declarers). If the TD judges that declarer will identify a > > cross ruff line as the only possibility then he will rule contract > made if > > it works. If he judges that declarer might eg try to throw as many > losers > > as possible on the hearts while then he will rule one off. > > The difficulty with all of this is that all declarers are very good at > knowing exactly how they would have played once the flaw in a claim has > been revealed to them. If, as not infrequently happens, declarer is a > better player than the director, he will have no difficulty in > convincing the official that of course, he would have cashed the > minor-suit winners early and then played the cross-ruff line. It's a judgement thing so the TD should consult. This should help but it won't always. > After all, > the de Wael principle that it is irrational to go down in a contract you > could have made must apply universally, or not at all. But rulings > should not depend on the relative abilities of the director and the > players, nor should a director be placed in the position of having to > say to a player: "In my opinion, you would have played badly". How about "I have consulted widely and the opinion is that a top player like you might adopt line X." They'll be too busy basking in the glow of their own ego to notice a bad score:-) > > > (B) Spades are 4-1, but hearts are 6-0. Herman and others will > happily > > > rule that declarer is one down; they will not let him ruff a heart > in > > > dummy after one round of trumps, despite this being (a) 100% for the > > > contract; (b) not in any way as difficult as the winning line in (A) > > > above. They will make him follow his claim statement, for it will > not > > > "break down" until the first round of hearts, by which time it will > be > > > too late. > > > Which seems absolutely right. Clearly declarer has not considered the > 6-0 > > break and nothing will happen while drawing trumps to remind him. > > Nonsense. When an opponent shows out on the second round of trumps, > declarer is quite likely to be "reminded" that he might need to ruff a > heart in dummy before drawing the third and fourth rounds. Agreed (not the nonsense). But to me "quite likely" leaves enough room for it to be a doubtful point. If you judged it to be "almost certain" I would disagree (but see next line). > > Your judgement differs from mine. > > Yes, I know it does. That is why it is very silly indeed to have a > situation in which your rulings will differ from mine because they are > made on the basis of our differing judgements. A sillyness that is inherent (I think) in an equity based ruling system. Good quality guidance well circulated by an SO would ameliorate many of our differences - shame it is not the case. > > It is definitely irrational to believe a trump doesn't exist when said > > trump appears on the table in front of you. > > Again, the word "irrational" does not mean "very careless". An old trick > that still works is for a defender to play the king in front of dummy's > AQ when declarer is about to take a finesse; if the declarer is not > paying attention, then he will play the queen anyway. Would you say that > such a declarer had been "irrational", or would you describe his action > as a piece of carelessness? It depends. If partner did it then words like "crass, moronic, etc" spring to mind. If I did it then my apology might well be "Sorry partner that was careless"*, if you did it as my opponent I'd be too busy stifling giggles to say anything. But if you asked me to give an interpretation under the current laws then I would come down firmly in the camp of "irrational". There are many instances in the laws where I think custom/practice/interpretation mandates that a word be given a more specific meaning than casual conversation requires. The WBFLCers amongst us seem insistent that Claimer will be deemed to notice the cards that would be played in good time to react (approx). I can live with this, and I am sure we would both apply it consistently (not a judgement issue). > If you are not expecting there to be a trump > outstanding, it is entirely conceivable that its significance will not > register on you when it is played. I agree. If the guidance from WBFLC were otherwise then this might matter. That might even make better claim law than we have now but as a player who very much favours early claims (next hand at rubber/sneaky cig at duplicate) I would not like that. Tim * Just a thought - perhaps the laws can say "All claims are to be considered in the context that Nicki/Wendy/Insert Name according to Location and Sexual Preference is bending over to serve drinks at the next table." It is clearly irrational actually to look at the cards at that moment. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 00:51:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MEpcZ16563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 00:51:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4MEpMt16559 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 00:51:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.117.247] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 152DUd-0002Sw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:50:40 +0100 Message-ID: <008801c0e2ce$6cb1b5e0$f7757ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> <003c01c0e253$4ad65fa0$b2047ad5@pbncomputer> <3B0A46A3.F8411CC8@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:49:35 +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: > You continually think that the claims laws need improving. > I wonder why ? Oh, well. If I have not made that clear by now, then I might as well cease to try. At any rate, I am going to the Bonn Nations Cup shortly, so will be unsubscr*bing from the list until my return on Friday. By that time, of course, a worldwide consensus on claims will have been reached, and we can all get on with the serious business of unauthorised information. > Now do you really believe that in that vast number of > contested claims today, there are more than a very few (say > 1%) where you and I would arrive at a different solution ? > I don't believe so. Judging by recent exchanges, the number may be higher than you think. But the claim laws are not the problem; they are merely a subset of the problem, which is that laws based on a desire to achieve equity through a series of individual judgements on individual cases carry within themselves the seed of their own destruction (to coin a phrase). > Now consider MI and UI. On the 1,000,000 hands played > today, several thousands reach a director for MI or UI > purposes. > Do you really believe that if you and I are given those > thousands of rulings to make, that we'd get the same result > in more than 50% of them? > Even if I were to have an excellent player by my side to > help me with the analysis. > I doubt it. The trouble is, of course, that you don't just need an excellent player. You need an excellent player to rule on excellent players, an average player to rule on average players, and an idiot to rule on idiots. It would also help to be accompanied by a drunk player, a notoriously absent-minded player, and a very slow player. Of course, one individual may be able to fill more than one of these roles - I have myself at times managed all of them except the last - but in general, your entourage would need to be considerable. I, on the other hand, need only a shotgun and half a dozen rounds of ammunition. > So if you really still believe there is a problem with the > game of bridge today, look somewhere else than the claims > laws ! Oh, very well. It is an absolute disgrace continually to find that, at the start of the play of each deal, four players have 13 cards when Law 6B makes it clear that one player should have 52, and the others none at all. 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 May 23 01:17:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MFH6H16736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 01:17:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MFGXt16730 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 01:16:34 +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 RAA10722; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:12:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA15077; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:15:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010522171940.00849c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:19:40 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:45 22/05/01 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >> > >> >Bd. 7 S. 10862 >> >Dlr: South H. 10 >> >Vul: Both D. Q83 >> > C. QJ983 >> >S. A93 S. KQ54 >> >H. 4 H. AQ98 >> >D. K765 D. AJ104 >> >C. A10652 C. 7 >> > S. J7 >> > H. KJ76532 >> > D. 92 >> > C. K4 >> > >> > W N E S >> > 2H (weak) >> > X (1) >> > P P X All pass >> >(1) Double out of rotation. >I disagreed with that ruling too (although I think it was closer than this >one). I ask myself "Would a player with this hand wish to bar partner >before hearing from him and unilaterally impose a penalty double?" since >my answer is "No" I will not apply the "could have known" principle. I am >sure that East is aware that this will be the best action on some hands >but equally sure he would believe it against the odds. I'll reconsider if >East badly needs a swing. AG : in my reading of L23, it isn't needed that East could have known that the forced pass will advantage him ; it is enough that he know that the forced pass could advantage him in some cases (a substantial proportion of the possible cases). You claim it isn't sure. Most of us claim it is, an element of proof being that he decided to double and bar partner. If he had tought he didn't have a penalty double, he would have passed, or perhaps gambled with 3NT. The main criterion is : does the forced pass allow the player to get a favorable result that was impossible or next-to-impossible without the forced pass ? If East plays TO doubles, the final contract can't be 2HX, unless West can double, which is highly unlikely. *But* if East plays penalty doubles, then the forced pass didn't bring him anything more than he could have obtained by an in-rotation double. In this case, L23 wouldn't be applicable. Best regards, Alain -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 01:21:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MFKY516772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 01:20:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MFK0t16756 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 01:20:03 +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 152DwL-0003cq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:19:20 +0000 Message-ID: <9gmxYXAuSbC7Ewwu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:37:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! References: <6J+vTYAjDHB7EwKo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <009b01c0e024$63ae84c0$53a7aec7@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 Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >At 4:53 PM +0100 5/20/01, David Stevenson wrote: >> Sure. But we deduced from the fact that taps are often used to mean >>passes that when we have to make a decision we shall assume a tap means >>a pass. I think it is a reasonable deduction. I do not think that >>saying we must stop all taps to mean passes is a solution. > >We have a regulation. It says (in the ACBL, anyway) that a call is >made when a card is removed from the bidding box "with intent." it >does not say that a call is made by tapping on the table. People >routinely violate this regulation. If we ignore those violations (and >thus Law 81C6), of what use is the regulation? > >If you want to change the regulation, fine. If you want to say >enforcing the regulation won't work, fine. But don't say enforcing it >"is not a solution". That's a cop out. It is a practical approach. Do you really think that after every hand the Director should go to every table and check whether there were three final passes as per the regulations? Whatever certain people think here, my view remains unaltered: we are running a game here. To do so we should know the laws, know the interpretation of the Laws, and know how and when to apply the Laws - and when does not mean do so 100% of the time because this game does not work that way. When was the last time you saw a pair expelled from an event for not having two completed CCs? Once you have decided on a practical approach certain things follow from it. Despite the regulation, you accept that people will in practice pass in certain ways, and usually it does very little harm. If it does do harm, of course that is different, and you rule against them. Now that you have accepted that some people tap instead of passing, then when there is a dispute, and a player tapped in a way that was clearly meant as a call, then because of custom+practice you rule that call to be a pass. It may not be what the regulations say but it is a reasonable, practical ruling. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 01:21:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MFKYM16771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 01:20:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MFK0t16754 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 01:20:01 +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 152DwL-000G9s-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:19:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:24:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <20010519023653.MYEZ715.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> <3B062993.84CB8857@village.uunet.be> <3B092AFD.AD53D7F7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3B092AFD.AD53D7F7@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael writes >> >> >Just tell me what you would rule, Wayne, if this declarer >> >simply put down his cards and writes +2220 on his scorecard >> >? >> >Are you really saying that you would rule against him ? And >> >yet you propose to rule against someone who has said more ? >> >> If I have a choice between ruling against someone who has made an >> incorrect claim statement, and someone who has not made an incorrect >> claim statement, I really think I would go for the former. >> > >David, you have misunderstood me. The choice is between >someone who made an incoorect statement and someone who did >not say a thing. > >I was asking Wayne if he would rule against someone who puts >down the cards that Ton showed us, when he said nothing. >I was doubting he would. Everyone can see there are 13 >tricks there. >Yet someone who says there are 16 tricks (including 3 heart >tricks that are not valid) would receive only 6 from Wayne. > >Please David, don't drop in on discussions with remarks that >are completely wrong in their context. I understood you perfectly, and my result stands as written, and was completely correct in the context. Herman, please do not assume I mean something other than that which I write. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 01:21:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MFKh416776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 01:20:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MFK0t16755 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 01:20:01 +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 152DwL-0003co-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:19:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:29:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <005f01c0e212$99f91320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005f01c0e212$99f91320$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 >With all hands exposed on the table after a claim is contested, >either partner (including the one who was dummy) can point out a >line of play that would invalidate the claim. It follows that >partners can confer on the matter. Nothing in L70B suggests that >"the class of player involved" should be a consideration. Also, >statements against self-interest should be ignored. Either a line of >play that invalidates a claim is found, or it is not. The TD has >nothing to decide unless L70C/D/E is involved. So, we take it, you are ignoring the wording of L70A completely? >With all cards exposed on the table, as is required, declarer should >have no problem. Nevertheless, dummy is allowed to point out a line >of declarer play that invalidates the claim. There is no need for a >TD to divine "what would have happened" if the deal were to be >played out when the declaring side says "This would have happened." >(Subject to L70C/D/E, of course.) Same comments as before. You have to decide "as equitably as possible" but you are not prepared to do that. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 01:41:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MFes616918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 01:40:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MFeht16914 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 01:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from fermat.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.37]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f4MFe0v17932; Tue, 22 May 2001 16:40:01 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4MFe0Z17974; Tue, 22 May 2001 16:40:00 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:40:00 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 QAA04928; Tue, 22 May 2001 16:39:59 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA19597; Tue, 22 May 2001 16:39:59 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:39:59 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200105221539.QAA19597@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, agot@ulb.ac.be Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner [ snip ] > *But* if East plays penalty doubles, then the forced pass didn't bring him > anything more than he could have obtained by an in-rotation double. In this > case, L23 wouldn't be applicable. > > Best regards, > > Alain > Hi Alain, Even if East plays penalty doubles, he may not get to make an in-rotation double, his idiot CHO may be about to bid clubs: so a preemptive double may still be to East's advantage. I (still) think this is L23 case. The difficulty is deciding likely results: we can then apply L12C2 or L12C3 depending on our locality. There is a case for 60/40 of those results where South opened 2H(weak), but this is not a practical score to calculate. 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 May 23 02:17:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MGG8i17180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 02:16:08 +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 f4MGFZt17171 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 02:15:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-71-62.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.71.62]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4MGEmL08573 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:14:48 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001901c0e2da$464eef60$3e47063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <006501c0e222$f2db5600$b9b5f1c3@kooijman> <003b01c0e28c$c62cd6a0$2362063e@dodona> <001401c0e297$f2895740$f8787ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Less (was More) faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:13:43 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 22 May 2001 09:19 Subject: Re: [BLML] Less (was More) faulty directing > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ If claimer is entitled to place cards when > > an opponent would fail to follow suit on any > > normal line of play, this can surely leave no > > scope for arguing that he may fail to observe > > a void through carelessness. > > I think that this means: it is irrational not to notice > an opponent show out of a suit. > +=+ I was discussing Law 70E. In this Law i do not think it matters a tinker's curse whether the player not seeing the failure to follow suit is irrational or careless; the law disregards any question of whether he would notice. If it happened the Director must act on the basis that it was observed; it is the occurrence that determines the application of the Law not the observation of 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 Wed May 23 02:57:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MGvG817421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 02:57:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MGuxt17416 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 02:57:00 +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 f4MGvNV09458 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002301c0e2e0$13094460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <006501c0e222$f2db5600$b9b5f1c3@kooijman> <003b01c0e28c$c62cd6a0$2362063e@dodona> <001401c0e297$f2895740$f8787ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Less (was More) faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:46:18 -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" > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ If claimer is entitled to place cards when > > an opponent would fail to follow suit on any > > normal line of play, this can surely leave no > > scope for arguing that he may fail to observe > > a void through carelessness. > > I think that this means: it is irrational not to notice an opponent show > out of a suit. I have myself not noticed an opponent show out of a suit > in the past; so have my partners; so has just about every bridge player > on the planet. Now, when I do this, I do not think to myself "I must > have been insane"; rather, I think "that was careless of me". When my > partner does it, I do not think "that was an irrational act"; rather, I > think "that was a careless thing to do". Moreover, I find it very > difficult to imagine that my reaction is in any way unusual - do you, > when you see a player miscount, or fail to observe, the cards played, > think "there is a lunatic"? Or do you think "there is someone who has > just been careless"? > > If we would use the word "careless" rather than the word "irrational" in > common parlance to describe what is, after all, a fairly common > occurrence, by what process of reasoning do we describe the occurrence > as "irrational" rather than "careless" when we are making a ruling based > on it? And, as I have enquired before, by what linguistic sophistry has > the word "irrational" become synonymous with the words "very careless"? > L70E, concerning "finesse or drop," has the words "would fail to follow to that suit on any [i.e., no matter which--mlf] normal line of play," or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational." Because of the "or", rationality does not have to be considered for handling a void. If the only normal line of play is for declarer to lead from xx toward AKJ10x, and LHO is void, then the "finesse" is not forced, even if one thinks that not noticing the void would be merely careless. If LHO follows, of course, then a losing finesse must be assumed unless it would not be "normal" as defined by the footnote. It seems to me that the same principle should apply in L70D. If not noticing a void isn't normal for L70E, then consistency says it isn't normal for L70D either. 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 May 23 03:04:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MH3q317485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 03:03:52 +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 f4MH3gt17481 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 03:03:43 +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 KAA08843; Tue, 22 May 2001 10:02:56 -0700 Message-Id: <200105221702.KAA08843@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 May 2001 08:12:00 EDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20010522075304.00af9d10@127.0.0.1> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:02:56 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:39 AM 5/21/01, David wrote: > > >Bd. 7 S. 10862 > >Dlr: South H. 10 > >Vul: Both D. Q83 > > C. QJ983 > >S. A93 S. KQ54 > >H. 4 H. AQ98 > >D. K765 D. AJ104 > >C. A10652 C. 7 > > S. J7 > > H. KJ76532 > > D. 92 > > C. K4 > > > > W N E S > > 2H (weak) > > X (1) > > P P X All pass > >(1) Double out of rotation. > > > > South did not accept the out of rotation double by East. So under > >L32A, East's double was cancelled and West has to pass whenever it is > >his turn to call. Therefore, West passed, so North and East doubled > >again and everyone passed. 2HX went down 4 (partly due to a bad play by > >South), +1100 to E/W. N/S was unhappy with this result. > > I'd let the score stand. E "could have known... that the irregularity > would have been likely to damage the NOS" [L72B1], but that would mean > that E determined that it would be to his advantage to defend 2HX > rather than compete for the contract. That being the case, the most > likely auction absent the irregularity would have been 2H-X-P-P-P. I > would therefore find that the OS did not "gain[] an advantage through > the irregularity". > > The subtle point here is that we assume that W would have taken his > most likely action. This is not a UI case; the law does not direct us > to consider W's LAs. I think doubling with the West hand is far from automatic. It's a little light to be doubling at the 2-level, for a hand that doesn't deliver the four spades it's supposed to. Double is certainly reasonable, but I think pass would get some votes in an expert panel---probably enough votes to push the probability of E/W +400 (or worse) past the 16.66% or 33.33% thresholds that the ACBL uses to determine the meaning of "at all probable" or "likely" used when assigning a score. (Yes, I realize that the hand probably didn't come from ACBL-land.) t Also, I think passing with the East hand is far from automatic. I realize you're arguing that we have to assume that East thought 2HX would be the best place in order for L72B1 (similarly L23) to apply, and that therefore East would certainly have passed a takeout double by West. I'm not convinced that your assumption is valid. For one thing, the Laws say L72B1 applies whenever East "could have known", which is subtly different from saying that it applies whenever "we think East might have actually been thinking about penalizing 2H"; I think L72B1 directs us just to look at the situation (i.e. the auction), not into East's possible thought processes, and therefore we don't need to make any assumptions about what East might have been planning in order for L72B1 to apply. (I'll admit this is rather fuzzy in my mind, and I'm having difficulty defending this position.) However, even if we did assume that East deliberately doubled out of turn because he thought 2HX would be the best spot, that doesn't mean he would have necessarily passed a takeout double by West. After all, the takeout double is supposed to promise four spades, and East also has four spades, which should significantly alter East's calculation of the relative suitability of his hand for offense versus defense---not to mention that the hand now has slam potential opposite the takeout double. Certainly, after 2H-X-pass-, it would take me a long time to decide whether it would be best to pass for penalties, go directly to 4S, try 3NT, torture partner with a cue-bid, start a slam exploration, or whatever. -- 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 May 23 05:07:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MJ6kb12704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 05:06:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f4MJ6Gt12616 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 05:06:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 70827 invoked for bounce); 22 May 2001 19:05:32 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-61-222.berlin.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.61.222) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 22 May 2001 19:05:32 -0000 Message-ID: <000001c0e2f2$acd55900$de3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:24:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Bd. 7 S. 10862 > Dlr: South H. 10 > Vul: Both D. Q83 > C. QJ983 > S. A93 S. KQ54 > H. 4 H. AQ98 > D. K765 D. AJ104 > C. A10652 C. 7 > S. J7 > H. KJ76532 > D. 92 > C. K4 > > W N E S > 2H (weak) > X (1) > P P X All pass > (1) Double out of rotation. > > South did not accept the out of rotation double by East. So under > L32A, East's double was cancelled > and West has to pass whenever it is > his turn to call. Therefore, West passed, so North and East doubled > again and everyone passed. 2HX > went down 4 (partly due to a bad play by > South), +1100 to E/W. N/S was unhappy with this result. I consider this to be close. The big question is whether E "could have known" that doubling out of rotation, thus forcing partner to pass, would work out to his advantage. Then, we really need to know whether a double in the W seat would have been penalties or takeout, and whether this is IMPs or MPs. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 06:24:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MKODL17950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 06:24:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MKO1t17942 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 06:24:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-80-92.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.80.92]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4MKNDL21049 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 21:23:14 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <004f01c0e2fd$0f0d3160$5c50063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <001701c0e2b7$40bd1540$0c237ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:59:00 +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: Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing . > > The issue is not whether an opponent shows > out of spades; the issue is that once West has > done this, East must be presumed to have > heart length. Now, Law 70E refers to "a > specific card"; it does not appear to me to > cover a case such as this, where the "unstated > line of play" relies on an opponent's having a > certain number of cards in a suit, regardless > of what those cards are. This is a peripheral > matter, but I suppose Grattan might care to > give it some thought. > +=+ I did. In the case on which I commented I concluded that the fifth card in the suit is a specific card, or if you like each of the five outstanding cards is a specific card. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 06:24:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MKODs17951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 06:24:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MKO3t17943 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 06:24:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-80-92.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.80.92]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4MKNFL21094; Tue, 22 May 2001 21:23:15 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <005001c0e2fd$10216080$5c50063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B862@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000e01c0e1da$348f4aa0$2d217ad5@pbncomputer> <003c01c0e253$4ad65fa0$b2047ad5@pbncomputer> <3B0A46A3.F8411CC8@village.uunet.be> <008801c0e2ce$6cb1b5e0$f7757ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty reading (was directing) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 21:22:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing > > > So if you really still believe there is a problem > > with the game of bridge today, look somewhere > > else than the claims laws ! > > Oh, very well. It is an absolute disgrace > continually to find that, at the start of the play > of each deal, four players have 13 cards when > Law 6B makes it clear that one player should > have 52, and the others none at all. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ But, as ever, that is only one reading of the law. Could you not read it alternatively, and more accurately, to say that that any one pocket may receive from none to four hands? I agree it does not say that each hand shall be placed in a different pocket - that procedure has developed from interpreting the intention of the legislators ! :-)) ! - but placing each hand in one of the pockets does not require that all the hands shall be in the same pocket. There is vastly more choice in it than that, at least as I read it. ~ Grattan ~ [observation: wording that currently lies in my papers for the Bali agenda reads: " The Committee agrees that Law 70E extends beyond questions only of 'finesse or drop'. (Headings to laws are not considered to be part of the laws.) It is interpreted to require the Director to adjudge that claimer would take account of any discovery of circumstances of the hand that he would make in pursuing the line of play in his statement of clarification or in any other normal line authorized under Law 70. It is noted that the application of Law 70E is determined solely by what the fall of the cards would reveal and any suggestion that claimer might fail to notice this is not entertained. " ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 07:09:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ML9Lr18112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 07:09:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4ML9Et18108 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 07:09:15 +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 f4ML6d010519; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105211823.LAA20116@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200105211823.LAA20116@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:58:44 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:23 AM -0700 5/21/01, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Reading the above sentence in context (see http://www.acbl.org/ >regulations/bidbox.htm), I cannot interpret it to mean "Removing a >card from the bidding box with intent is the only proper form of >making a call, and other forms are improper." I think that's reading >something into the wording of the regulation that isn't quite there. >The main purpose of this sentence is to distinguish actions involving >bidding cards that constitute a call from actions involving bidding >cards that do not constitute a call---not to make any statement about >actions that don't involve a bidding box (such as making a call >verbally, e.g.). The Laws, in the "Scope of the Laws" section, says "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure". Should we not view the regulations in the same vein? I do. 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/AwUBOwrVU72UW3au93vOEQL9/gCg0mKYX6mGmRamRsivQaX6UWD2F+AAn0E/ bi616vlBcqoox0rfHY/TYfSf =9Du5 -----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 May 23 07:19:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MLJ7r20611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 07:19:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4MLJ0t20575 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 07:19:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4MLGZ820951 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:16:35 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9gmxYXAuSbC7Ewwu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <6J+vTYAjDHB7EwKo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <009b01c0e024$63ae84c0$53a7aec7@ix.netcom.com> <9gmxYXAuSbC7Ewwu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:15:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:37 AM +0100 5/22/01, David Stevenson wrote: >It is a practical approach. Do you really think that after every hand >the Director should go to every table and check whether there were three >final passes as per the regulations? Of course not. But if a director is called to a table where there haven't been three final passes because somebody tapped the table, then he should rule accordingly - not say "oh, well, everybody knows what a tap means" (I didn't, when I first started playing duplicate - in England, where I learned it means "alert", not "pass") and rule "no infraction, no penalty." Directors made aware of a problem have to deal with it according to the laws and regulations in force. > Whatever certain people think here, my view remains unaltered: we are >running a game here. To do so we should know the laws, know the >interpretation of the Laws, and know how and when to apply the Laws - >and when does not mean do so 100% of the time because this game does not >work that way. When was the last time you saw a pair expelled from an >event for not having two completed CCs? Never seen it. So what? I *have* seen players taken to task by a director for that infraction - at a club game. They were told to have two identical cards next time they played together (this occurred, iirc, in the next-to-last round of the evening). Next time I saw them, they each had a card. > Once you have decided on a practical approach certain things follow >from it. Despite the regulation, you accept that people will in >practice pass in certain ways, and usually it does very little harm. If >it does do harm, of course that is different, and you rule against them. >Now that you have accepted that some people tap instead of passing, then >when there is a dispute, and a player tapped in a way that was clearly >meant as a call, then because of custom+practice you rule that call to >be a pass. It may not be what the regulations say but it is a >reasonable, practical ruling. I don't really have a problem with ruling that way - but I would point out to the offender that he got himself into trouble by not following proper procedure - which is to put the card corresponding to his intended call on the table. I would suggest to him that if he always did that, there could be no mistaking what he meant - and no possible confusion about the status of the auction. Maybe, if ever I actually *do* some directing, I'll change my mind. Maybe. :-) 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/AwUBOwrXnr2UW3au93vOEQLTcACg7Z0semeq/FbGHknN98iWuJdVhq4An2j3 zsPnXMRt8aMf6/mHrBojWkBn =0iYR -----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 May 23 07:39:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MLcdP24675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 07:38:39 +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 f4MLcWt24648 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 07:38:33 +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 OAA14151; Tue, 22 May 2001 14:37:50 -0700 Message-Id: <200105222137.OAA14151@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 May 2001 16:58:44 EDT." Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:37:50 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed wrote: > At 11:23 AM -0700 5/21/01, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >Reading the above sentence in context (see http://www.acbl.org/ > >regulations/bidbox.htm), I cannot interpret it to mean "Removing a > >card from the bidding box with intent is the only proper form of > >making a call, and other forms are improper." I think that's reading > >something into the wording of the regulation that isn't quite there. > >The main purpose of this sentence is to distinguish actions involving > >bidding cards that constitute a call from actions involving bidding > >cards that do not constitute a call---not to make any statement about > >actions that don't involve a bidding box (such as making a call > >verbally, e.g.). > > The Laws, in the "Scope of the Laws" section, says "The Laws are > designed to define correct procedure". Should we not view the > regulations in the same vein? I do. Oh, come on. Sure, the Laws as a whole, and also the regulations as a whole, are designed to define correct procedure. This doesn't mean that every sentence of every Law defines a correct procedure, does it? Some of them define correct procedure, and some of them have other purposes. I mean, would you say that this sentence from Law 28A: A call is considered to be in rotation when it is made by a player at his RHO's turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass. defines the correct procedure, and that you're therefore *required* to call when it's RHO's turn when RHO has been barred? No, of course not. You have to use common sense, and look at things in context to determine what their purpose is; and the obvious reading of the regulation is that its purpose is to distinguish a "call" from a manipulation of the bidding cards that does not constitute a call---not to make other forms of calls illegal. [In fact, not only is it proper, I believe, to make a call verbally when using bidding boxes, as I often do when my attempt to bid with the bidding box results in seventeen bidding cards on the floor---I make my intended call verbally so everyone else can get on with the game---it also appears to be legal to refuse to use the bidding box entirely and to make *all* one's calls verbally, unless a player at the table has a hearing impairment. Or, I suppose, if the Conditions of Contests say otherwise.] -- 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 May 23 08:52:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MMmsZ19476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:48:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4MMmlt19437 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:48:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4MMkN819568; Tue, 22 May 2001 18:46:24 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105222137.OAA14151@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200105222137.OAA14151@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:42:53 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Something other than a claim!! Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:37 PM -0700 5/22/01, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Oh, come on. Sure, the Laws as a whole, and also the regulations as a >whole, are designed to define correct procedure. This doesn't mean >that every sentence of every Law defines a correct procedure, does it? Of course not. But it seems to me that the statement in question (in the bidding box regulation) *does* define correct procedure. Are you now saying it does not? >You have to use common sense, and look at things in context to >determine what their purpose is; and the obvious reading of the >regulation is that its purpose is to distinguish a "call" from a >manipulation of the bidding cards that does not constitute a >call---not to make other forms of calls illegal. Well, that's part of it. >[In fact, not only is it proper, I believe, to make a call verbally >when using bidding boxes, as I often do when my attempt to bid with >the bidding box results in seventeen bidding cards on the floor---I >make my intended call verbally so everyone else can get on with the >game--- I see nothing wrong with that - you're clearly not using the bidding box to make your call, and letting everyone else get on with the game while you clean up your mess certainly seems like a reasonable thing to me. Common sense, as you say. :-) >it also appears to be legal to refuse to use the bidding box >entirely and to make *all* one's calls verbally, unless a player at >the table has a hearing impairment. Or, I suppose, if the Conditions >of Contests say otherwise.] I believe the regs themselves account for this possibility. Certainly they seem to support one of my regular partners' refusal to use the bidding cards - his eyesight is terrible, and he can't see the tabs on the cards (though he can see the full card well enough to read its meaning once it's on the table). And ACBL regs generally would seem to preclude procedures that refuse to take a player's disability into account (not to mention the ADA and similar laws). Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOwrsqb2UW3au93vOEQIlDACeINPIM3Vb6E/1sNYDkvtfqSAnA1oAn2Hj KEqVLaqxNp8KoBFm9tt5Ngfg =oOW5 -----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 May 23 08:58:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MMu8s21409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:56:08 +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 f4MMu2t21405 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:56:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-67-11.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.67.11]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4MMtFL08843 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 23:55:15 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000701c0e312$4c23b960$0b437bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:54:31 +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 To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing > > Tim wrote: > > > > (A) Spades are 5-0, but hearts are 3-3. > . . > > > > Herman and others will happily rule that > > > > declarer will cash one top spade and, on > > > > seeing an opponent show out, fall back > > > > on his only chance, which is to cash three > > > > hearts > +=+ Will they? This is a new line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement? Does not claimer have to propose it before the Director adjudicates whether there is another, less successful, normal line of play? ~ 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 May 23 09:02:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4MMxkn21424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:59:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4MMxgt21420 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:59:42 +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 JAA12308 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:04:25 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:50:30 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:57:08 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 23/05/2001 08:54:54 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Bd. 7 S. 10862 >Dlr: South H. 10 >Vul: Both D. Q83 > C. QJ983 >S. A93 S. KQ54 >H. 4 H. AQ98 >D. K765 D. AJ104 >C. A10652 C. 7 > S. J7 > H. KJ76532 > D. 92 > C. K4 > > W N E S > 2H (weak) > X (1) > P P X All pass >(1) Double out of rotation. The rest of the blml list is stating that East is clearly in violation of L23 and L72B1, ie East *knows* that defending 2Hx is the best contract for EW. Given that as the cards lie 6D EW is cold, this is untrue on the actual hand. Furthermore, at the time the out-of-turn double double was made, East saw only the opening bid and their own cards. There are many conceivable layouts consistent with that information where 3NT EW makes, and 2Hx goes for only 500. 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 May 23 10:06:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4N01ge21546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 10:01:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4N01at21542 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 10:01:36 +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 RAA16861; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:00:54 -0700 Message-Id: <200105230000.RAA16861@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 May 2001 08:57:08 +1000." Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:00:54 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > >Bd. 7 S. 10862 > >Dlr: South H. 10 > >Vul: Both D. Q83 > > C. QJ983 > >S. A93 S. KQ54 > >H. 4 H. AQ98 > >D. K765 D. AJ104 > >C. A10652 C. 7 > > S. J7 > > H. KJ76532 > > D. 92 > > C. K4 > > > > W N E S > > 2H (weak) > > X (1) > > P P X All pass > >(1) Double out of rotation. > > The rest of the blml list is stating that East > is clearly in violation of L23 and L72B1, ie East > *knows* that defending 2Hx is the best contract > for EW. No, we're not. All L72B1 and L23 require are that East "could have known" that the enforced pass "would be LIKELY" to damage the non-offending side. As I see it, whenever someone has a lot of good trumps and cannot make a penalty double because of their agreements, but the enforced pass allows them to make a penalty double, this makes it LIKELY enough (from offender's point of view) that the enforced pass will damage the other side. It doesn't matter whether this is actually the best contract on the actual lie of the cards, or how many possible layouts there are in which E-W have a better spot than defending doubled. > Given that as the cards lie 6D EW is cold, this is > untrue on the actual hand. Hmmm . . . I think it might be cold, double-dummy, by taking two ruffing finesses through South and squeezing North in the blacks---unless East plays the contract and South finds the S7 lead (the SJ isn't good enough), and North returns a spade when he gets in with his heart overruff; and now I believe the squeeze fails for lack of entries. Then again, I doubt that any East who isn't good enough to know that the auction proceeds clockwise will be good enough to play correctly. Of course, maybe there's a simple line I'm missing. If so, someone will have to point it out to me. It might be easier if the 8 and 5 of diamonds were exchanged, but they're where they are. > Furthermore, at the time the out-of-turn double > double was made, East saw only the opening bid > and their own cards. There are many conceivable > layouts consistent with that information where > 3NT EW makes, and 2Hx goes for only 500. As I explained above, this is irrelevant. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 10:20:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4N0HkI21591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 10:17:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4N0HZt21577 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 10:17:36 +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 152MKZ-000JFM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 May 2001 00:16:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:45:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <014401c0e279$338ef160$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 >> > >> >David, you are writing new law. A pair can confer when determining >> >whether an opposing claim is valid. >> >> No, I am not writing new Law. Try reading L70A. > >Don't see anything there prohibiting a discussion between a claimer's >opponents. Nor do I. However, there is something about deciding a claim equitably. >> >Judging such things based on "class of player involved" is an >> >elitist notion that does not belong in the Laws, and is not in this >> >particular law (L70). >> >> Well, it is in the ACBL version of the Laws. > >For the claimer, and for acquiescing/conceding opponents, but not for >opponents contesting a claim. So, we agree: it is in the Law. >> >I have not participated in the "irrational" discussion, but have the >> >opinion that someone who doesn't know who is involved should decide >> >whether a line of play is irrational, and "the class of player >> >involved" should be erased from the next version of the Laws. There >> >is no objective measure of "class," other than for well-known >> >experts, who thereby get an unfair advantage in disputed claims. >> >> This is not true. Directors consider the class of player involved in >> claims, and it works both ways. >> >The "normal" language in the footnotes does not apply to the play of a >contesting pair, and such an extension is unwarranted. OK, but that still does not give you the right to totally ignore the wording of L70A. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 10:20:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4N0HnF21593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 10:17:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4N0Hft21586 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 10:17:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 152MKi-000JFN-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 May 2001 00:17:02 +0000 Message-ID: <07+DepBNEwC7EwAm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:15:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: <3B0A3ECF.5090508@interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <3B0A3ECF.5090508@interia.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 >For North - South it's more difficult. I would welcome >information if this was MPs or IMPs; I think >this might well affect East's choice what to do after 2H >is passed back to him and the percentages if we decide >to award a weighted score. David? I have just heard it was an open pairs, and East-West looked like LOLs but were unknown to the Director. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 10:20:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4N0Hlq21592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 10:17:47 +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 f4N0HZt21578 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 10:17:36 +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 152MKZ-000JFN-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 May 2001 00:16:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:25:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: <200105212350.QAA25846@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010522135249.00843450@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010522135249.00843450@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >AG : E/W are not allowed a weighted score, because they should get 'the >worst result that is at all possible'. Under the current interpretations of Law it is permissible and normal to use L12C3 to weight a score for the offenders. Some think this should not be the case, just as some think that L12C3 should not exist. But it is not true that you do not weight a score for the offenders because of the wording of L12C2: in effect the wording of L12C3 supersedes the wording of L12C3, as can be realised from the wording "... vary an assigned ...". >Add to this >a substantial PP. What for? Do you always issue a PP to anyone who calls out of turn, or is there something different about this particular situation? ---------- >For North - South it's more difficult. I would welcome >information if this was MPs or IMPs; I think >this might well affect East's choice what to do after 2H >is passed back to him and the percentages if we decide >to award a weighted score. David? Sorry, I gave you all the info I was given. ---------- Eric Landau writes >I'd let the score stand. E "could have known... that the irregularity >would have been likely to damage the NOS" [L72B1], but that would mean >that E determined that it would be to his advantage to defend 2HX >rather than compete for the contract. That being the case, the most >likely auction absent the irregularity would have been 2H-X-P-P-P. I >would therefore find that the OS did not "gain[] an advantage through >the irregularity". > >The subtle point here is that we assume that W would have taken his >most likely action. This is not a UI case; the law does not direct us >to consider W's LAs. No, but if you are ruling under L12C2 it does require you to award the most favourable result that was at all likely to the NOs: this means you should consider the alternatives. So the law does require that you consider West's possible alternative actions - which is not far distant from considering his LAs. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 16:27:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4N6QEK00206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 16:26:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4N6Q6t00160 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 16:26:07 +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 f4N6QSV08318 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 23:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003901c0e351$194544c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:22:54 -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 > > > >> > >The "normal" language in the footnotes does not apply to the play of a > >contesting pair, and such an extension is unwarranted. > > OK, but that still does not give you the right to totally ignore the > wording of L70A. Ah, I see the problem. L70A: In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. Evidently you are interpreting "equitably" to accord with the increasingly popular but incorrect use of the word: giving each side its perceived equity in the deal. I interpret it to mean (from my dictionary) fairly, impartially, justly, rightly, reasonably, even-handedly. As with a revoke, this does not mean that each side should get the score that a TD thinks is representative of its equity in the deal. "Equitably" has no connection with the sense of equity that means a pair's perceived share in the outcome of a deal. What L70A says is that the claim should be settled in strict accord with the rest of L70, and L71, while resolving doubtful points against the claimer. If a claimer's opponent sees a line of play that invalidates the claim, then there is no "doubtful point" to be considered--the claim is invalid. Okay, an opponent claims at my table and all hands are tabled. I see a line of play that invalidates the claim, but it requires partner's good play. You, as TD, want me to keep quiet and let my partner see it on hir own. If I comment on the line, then you must decide whether partner would have been capable of executing it, based on the class of player s/he is. Of course you have no idea what my partner's "class" is, never having seen hir before. After some interrogation, you decide that partner would have been unlikely to find the right line, and allow the claim. This means you find that L70B3 (The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim) could endanger the claimer's equity. You don't want to hear an objection that requires good play by the objector's partner. If you do hear it, you may have to ask the partner, "Would you have made that play?" You realize that the answer may be a lie, so you give it the weight you think appropriate. The Laws should not be applied in a way that tempts players to lie. L16A and L73F are carefully worded to avoid this possibility. A bad claim is an invalid claim, and should not be allowed if an opponent can see a line of play that invalidates it. Either opponent, of any class. 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 May 23 16:33:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4N6X6A02644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 16:33:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esmtp.its.it ([151.92.2.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4N6Wxt02603 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 16:33:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from svuns013-1.its.it (151.92.250.197) by esmtp.its.it (5.1.056) id 3ADED75A0023F894; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:30:40 +0200 Received: from svuns013.its.it (151.92.1.240) by svuns013-1.its.it (5.1.056) id 3AED4277001F3693; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:31:32 +0200 Received: from ex1unintd09.its.it (151.92.250.34) by svuns013.its.it (5.1.056) id 3AED4267001EA81D; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:31:32 +0200 Received: by EX1UNINTD09 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52) id ; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:29:35 +0200 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: R: [BLML] Average in cross-IMP Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:27:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52) 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 f4N6X2t02613 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I see that there are many systems in word . You say 2 IMP , in Cavendish they use 3IMP for comparation , British union say SQRT(8xcomparations) .... When you have many tables there is too much difference .... I hope and think that the final result is correct but why not only a system by WBF ? Bye ENNIO NARDULLO -----Messaggio originale----- Da: John (MadDog) Probst [mailto:john@asimere.com] Inviato: martedì 22 maggio 2001 0.51 A: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Oggetto: Re: [BLML] Average in cross-IMP In article , NARDULLO Ennio writes >Counting cross-imp : > >What is the best method of counting average in form >60% 40% or 60% 50% etc , with 20-25 tables and 20 rounds of 1 board ? I award +2/-2 for 60/40 at Butler and cross-imps. Butler and cross- imps are pretty close, and I am convinced +2 for 60% is correct at Butler. cheers john > >Bye >ENNIO NARDULLO -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 17:08:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4N76qI02793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 17:06:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4N76jt02789 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 17:06:46 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA29146; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:06:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed May 23 09:05:22 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 <01K3WBYPLWMQ006Y06@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:05:23 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:04:22 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:05:21 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Average in cross-IMP To: "'NARDULLO Ennio'" , "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B868@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 see that there are many systems in word . > You say 2 IMP , in Cavendish they use 3IMP for comparation , > British union > say SQRT(8xcomparations) .... > When you have many tables there is too much difference .... > I hope and think that the final result is correct but why not > only a system > by WBF ? > Bye > ENNIO NARDULLO > There are two reasonable answers for your question 'why not...' The first is that the BF has sort of a system, described in detail for matchpoint scoring and for imp scoring, and for adjusted scores in pairs and teams. Part of the system is also that sponsoring organizations may use special scoring methods. The second is that the WBF should not be too demanding when the principle of bridge as a game is not involved. It doesn't change the play when somebody gives 3 imps iso 2 imps for an artifical score in a butler or cross imp event. The reason for the differences you noticed is that sponsoring organizations discovered that 3 * number of comparisons is too much as an artificial score. As John said 2 imps is more in line with the 60% as average-plus in a pairs event. And sqrt (8*comp) seems not enough, though in a long event with homogeneous field it might come close. But if you suggest that the WBF should give more guidelines on the subject of calculation I agree with you. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 18:05:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4N85GC02933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 18:05:16 +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 f4N856t02926 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 18:05:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4N84Qr09762 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:04:26 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:04 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn 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: <200105230000.RAA16861@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam wrote: > No, we're not. All L72B1 and L23 require are that East "could have > known" that the enforced pass "would be LIKELY" to damage the > non-offending side. As I see it, whenever someone has a lot of good > trumps and cannot make a penalty double because of their agreements, > but the enforced pass allows them to make a penalty double, this makes > it LIKELY enough (from offender's point of view) that the enforced > pass will damage the other side. It doesn't matter whether this is > actually the best contract on the actual lie of the cards, or how many > possible layouts there are in which E-W have a better spot than > defending doubled. Aren't you confusing *likely* with *possible*? Surely if offender can see that on 90% of the probable layouts barring partner would lead to an inferior contract it is not likely that the pass will damage NOS. Now this case is closer. Gut feel tells me that the figure is around 60-65%. Again not enough to expect damage to be likely. I know I am reading likely here to be something like "more probable than not" and that elsewhere in the laws it is used differently. I also know that using the same word differently happens elsewhere too. Another candidate for Grattan's list of clarifications? 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 May 23 18:05:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4N85GY02934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 18:05:16 +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 f4N856t02925 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 18:05:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4N84Pg09752 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:04:25 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:04 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn 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: <3.0.6.32.20010522171940.00849c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> alain gottcheiner wrote: > > At 12:45 22/05/01 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > >> > > >> >Bd. 7 S. 10862 > >> >Dlr: South H. 10 > >> >Vul: Both D. Q83 > >> > C. QJ983 > >> >S. A93 S. KQ54 > >> >H. 4 H. AQ98 > >> >D. K765 D. AJ104 > >> >C. A10652 C. 7 > >> > S. J7 > >> > H. KJ76532 > >> > D. 92 > >> > C. K4 > >> > > >> > W N E S > >> > 2H (weak) > >> > X (1) > >> > P P X All pass > >> >(1) Double out of rotation. > > >I disagreed with that ruling too (although I think it was closer than > this >one). I ask myself "Would a player with this hand wish to bar > partner >before hearing from him and unilaterally impose a penalty > double?" since >my answer is "No" I will not apply the "could have > known" principle. I am >sure that East is aware that this will be the > best action on some hands >but equally sure he would believe it against > the odds. I'll reconsider if >East badly needs a swing. > > AG : in my reading of L23, it isn't needed that East could have known > that the forced pass will advantage him ; it is enough that he know that > the forced pass could advantage him in some cases (a substantial > proportion of the possible cases). You claim it isn't sure. To me this is not enough. It is necessary that the player might think barring partner is *likely* to work to his advantage. > Most of us > claim it is, an element of proof being that he decided to double and bar > partner. Unless you think the COOT was deliberate he did not "decide" to do this. He did it accidentally and then had to decide on the best action knowing partner was barred. > If he had tought he didn't have a penalty double, he would have > passed, or perhaps gambled with 3NT. He might. But if you gave this hand to several people with the information that partner was barred I think a fair few would regard double as the pragmatic choice (I doubt any would pass). > The main criterion is : does the forced pass allow the player to get a > favorable result that was impossible or next-to-impossible without the > forced pass ? > If East plays TO doubles, the final contract can't be 2HX, unless West > can double, which is highly unlikely. OTOH the hands on which West would TOX are those likely to extract a worthwhile penalty from 2H. If West would have bid a suit the hand probably scores better elsewhere. The hands on which barring partner works well are probably those where West has intermediate values with clubs and quick tricks (as he did). > > *But* if East plays penalty doubles, then the forced pass didn't bring > him anything more than he could have obtained by an in-rotation double. > In this case, L23 wouldn't be applicable. Agreed. Same goes for optional doubles. 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 May 23 20:06:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NA5ig03264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 20:05:44 +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 f4NA5bt03260 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 20:05:38 +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 152VVe-000BfY-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 May 2001 10:04:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:57:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn 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 > >>Bd. 7 S. 10862 >>Dlr: South H. 10 >>Vul: Both D. Q83 >> C. QJ983 >>S. A93 S. KQ54 >>H. 4 H. AQ98 >>D. K765 D. AJ104 >>C. A10652 C. 7 >> S. J7 >> H. KJ76532 >> D. 92 >> C. K4 >> >> W N E S >> 2H (weak) >> X (1) >> P P X All pass >>(1) Double out of rotation. > >The rest of the blml list is stating that East >is clearly in violation of L23 and L72B1, ie East >*knows* that defending 2Hx is the best contract >for EW. No, that is neither what the Law says nor what the rest of BLML is arguing. They are arguing that East "could have known" that barring partner would disadvantage the opposition - and that is what the Law says. >Furthermore, at the time the out-of-turn double >double was made, East saw only the opening bid >and their own cards. There are many conceivable >layouts consistent with that information where >3NT EW makes, and 2Hx goes for only 500. True. Consider this bidding problem, no hands given. 3H opened on your right, you play double as penalty, you have a hand that many people would double for penalty on. What do you do? Try and convince me you do *not* double for penalty because "There are many conceivable layouts consistent with that information where 3NT EW makes, and 3Hx goes for only 500". You do not bid that way: that is not the way decision-making works: you go for the call that leads in your judgement to the highest expectation of score, not one that works every time. So, if 2H is opened on your left, and you cannot make a penalty double, whether partner passes or not, what do you do if you think that a penalty double would be a good idea? Well, you might silence partner then double, not because it is *guaranteed* to work, but because it seems the best odds method. What is wrong with that? Simple, L23 is there specifically to stop this form of abuse. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 21:38:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NBbgk03486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 21:37:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NBbat03482 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 21:37:36 +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 NAA04672; Wed, 23 May 2001 13:36:37 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA23083; Wed, 23 May 2001 13:36:21 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010523134041.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:40:41 +0200 To: "Thomas Dehn" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-Reply-To: <000001c0e2f2$acd55900$de3d1dc2@rabbit> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:24 22/05/01 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >I consider this to be close. The big question is whether >E "could have known" that doubling out of rotation, >thus forcing partner to pass, would work out to >his advantage. AG : do you mean he knew it would be good for him ? Of course not : how can one be sure how it would work out ? Fortunately, we are asked much less than that : L23 applies if E could have known that the forced pass *could* work to his advantage. To this, the answer is clearly yes : there are a substantial number of cases where the forced pass will achieve a good result (better than if t he bidding had been 'reguler'). Thus we have to apply L23. Determining the plausible results of a normal action, however, is more tricky. Why not look at the results at other tables, then enquire as to whether they were attained after a 2H opening, then take the most favourable to NS ? 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 May 23 21:46:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NBkLn03517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 21:46:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NBkFt03513 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 21:46:15 +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 NAA05991; Wed, 23 May 2001 13:45:17 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA28866; Wed, 23 May 2001 13:45:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010523134920.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) X-Priority: 2 (High) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:49:20 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Wording, was Double out of turn Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f4NBkIt03514 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:04 23/05/01 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > >Aren't you confusing *likely* with *possible*? Surely if offender can see >that on 90% of the probable layouts barring partner would lead to an >inferior contract it is not likely that the pass will damage NOS. >Now this case is closer. Gut feel tells me that the figure is around >60-65%. Again not enough to expect damage to be likely. I know I am >reading likely here to be something like "more probable than not" and that >elsewhere in the laws it is used differently. I also know that using the >same word differently happens elsewhere too. > >Another candidate for Grattan's list of clarifications? AG : sure ! Especially as the French version uses the wording 'le passe obligé pourrait désavantager le camp non fautif', which translates into 'the enforced pass could disadvantage the NOS'. This, as the 'DOOT' thread shows, means clearly less than 'is likely to disadvantage'. Barring the possibility that either Tim or yours truly read the wrong passage, this looks like a major discrepancy between the versions, something that should be fixed. Comments appreciated. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 22:05:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NC5PQ04621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 22:05:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NC5Ht04582 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 22:05:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4NC4aZ08079 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 May 2001 13:04:36 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:04 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn 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: > So, if 2H is opened on your left, and you cannot make a penalty > double, whether partner passes or not, what do you do if you think that > a penalty double would be a good idea? Well, you might silence partner > then double, not because it is *guaranteed* to work, but because it > seems the best odds method. What is wrong with that? Simple, L23 is > there specifically to stop this form of abuse. I think we all agree on this. What I (and I think Richard) believe is that this hand is not one where silencing pard is the best odds method, obviously that's a judgement call and we could be wrong but it does need to be considered. Make the hand x,AKQT8,AKx,xxxx and I think we would both use L23 like lightning. Tim WM -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 23 23:30:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NDThC04675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 23:29:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NDTZt04638 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 23:29:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4NDSrv25497 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 May 2001 14:28:53 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:28 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Wording, was Double out of turn 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: <3.0.6.32.20010523134920.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> AG wrote: > >Another candidate for Grattan's list of clarifications? > > AG : sure ! Especially as the French version uses the wording 'le passe > obligé pourrait désavantager le camp non fautif', which translates into > 'the enforced pass could disadvantage the NOS'. This, as the 'DOOT' > thread > shows, means clearly less than 'is likely to disadvantage'. Barring the > possibility that either Tim or yours truly read the wrong passage, this > looks like a major discrepancy between the versions, something that > should be fixed. Alain, had I read only the French version of the laws I would not have argued about using L23/L72. The French version is clearly a poor translation of the English as actually written - but it might be a good translation of the writer's intent. Helllooo Grattan. 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 May 24 01:59:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NFwKk14194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 01:58:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NFwDt14190 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 01:58:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 152b0t-0000YC-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 May 2001 16:57:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:55:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Average in cross-IMP References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B868@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B868@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B868@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes > >> >> I see that there are many systems in word . >> You say 2 IMP , in Cavendish they use 3IMP for comparation , >> British union >> say SQRT(8xcomparations) .... >> When you have many tables there is too much difference .... >> I hope and think that the final result is correct but why not >> only a system >> by WBF ? >> Bye >> ENNIO NARDULLO >> >There are two reasonable answers for your question 'why not...' >The first is that the BF has sort of a system, described in detail for >matchpoint scoring and for imp scoring, and for adjusted scores in pairs and >teams. Part of the system is also that sponsoring organizations may use >special scoring methods. >The second is that the WBF should not be too demanding when the principle of >bridge as a game is not involved. It doesn't change the play when somebody >gives 3 imps iso 2 imps for an artifical score in a butler or cross imp >event. > >The reason for the differences you noticed is that sponsoring organizations >discovered that 3 * number of comparisons is too much as an artificial >score. As John said 2 imps is more in line with the 60% as average-plus in a >pairs event. And sqrt (8*comp) seems not enough, though in a long event with >homogeneous field it might come close. > The justification I have for believing 2 imps is correct is not so much based on written work but on pragmatic measurement. At the Young Chelsea we play Butler imps on a Friday night, and largely the same group plays pairs on Monday and Wednesday. Over the last *25* years we have monitored the number of scores above 60% on Monday and Wednesday (We award prizes amongst the TD staff for the best pieces of useless information - I will publish some of these one day - typical examples might be there were 5 "John"s in consecutive places - this would get 5.3 for style and 4.8 for technical content) Anyway as a result of this huge feat of data mining we "know" that over 26 boards 45 imps equates to 60%, based on the numbers of pairs who beat this score on the appropriate evening. Were you to award 2 imps per board to a pair they'd score 52 imps. This seems good enough for me. As for the validity of using it in cross-imping, try looking at the tables I produced in the Hammamet World Championship, where I Butlered and cross-imped the results. It makes no practical difference. Equally I sometimes cross-imp the YC game just to check. Again it makes no practical difference, so I view that 2 imps is about right in cross- imped pairs for 60% >But if you suggest that the WBF should give more guidelines on the subject >of calculation I agree with you. > >ton > -- 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 May 24 01:59:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NFxYq14208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 01:59:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4NFxSt14204 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 01:59:28 +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 IAA31789; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:58:46 -0700 Message-Id: <200105231558.IAA31789@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 May 2001 09:04:00 BST." Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:58:46 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <200105230000.RAA16861@mailhub.irvine.com> > Adam wrote: > > > No, we're not. All L72B1 and L23 require are that East "could have > > known" that the enforced pass "would be LIKELY" to damage the > > non-offending side. As I see it, whenever someone has a lot of good > > trumps and cannot make a penalty double because of their agreements, > > but the enforced pass allows them to make a penalty double, this makes > > it LIKELY enough (from offender's point of view) that the enforced > > pass will damage the other side. It doesn't matter whether this is > > actually the best contract on the actual lie of the cards, or how many > > possible layouts there are in which E-W have a better spot than > > defending doubled. > > Aren't you confusing *likely* with *possible*? Not really. As you mention later, "likely" is used elsewhere in the Laws to mean something that we wouldn't necessarily use the term "likely" for in English. Since it's important not to penalize non-offenders for their opponents' irregularities (and since, as David pointed out, it's important to prevent abuse), I think it's necessary to read "likely" in as broad a way as possible. > Surely if offender can see that on 90% of the probable layouts > barring partner would lead to an inferior contract it is not likely > that the pass will damage NOS. Now this case is closer. Gut feel > tells me that the figure is around 60-65%. Again not enough to > expect damage to be likely. It is enough, if you adopt the ACBL's definition of "likely" that it uses for Law 12C2, which means having a 1/3 probability at least. As for gut feelings, mine tells me that playing 2Hx is more likely to cause damage than your gut does. (Mostly because of those nice trump spots.) I'm tempted to try a simulation, but I don't think I have time. -- 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 May 24 02:28:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NGSUX14297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 02:28:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NGSOt14293 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 02:28:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:23:37 -0700 Message-ID: <006701c0e3a5$3be5d180$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:27:13 -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" > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > >>Bd. 7 S. 10862 > >>Dlr: South H. 10 > >>Vul: Both D. Q83 > >> C. QJ983 > >>S. A93 S. KQ54 > >>H. 4 H. AQ98 > >>D. K765 D. AJ104 > >>C. A10652 C. 7 > >> S. J7 > >> H. KJ76532 > >> D. 92 > >> C. K4 > >> > >> W N E S > >> 2H (weak) > >> X (1) > >> P P X All pass > >>(1) Double out of rotation. > > > >The rest of the blml list is stating that East > >is clearly in violation of L23 and L72B1, ie East > >*knows* that defending 2Hx is the best contract > >for EW. > > No, that is neither what the Law says nor what the rest of BLML is > arguing. They are arguing that East "could have known" that barring > partner would disadvantage the opposition - and that is what the Law > says. Please quote exactly when citing a law. Both L72B (any irregularity) and L23 (damaging enforced pass) use the words "could have known...would be likely to damage..." L73F1 uses the words "could have known...could work to his benefit...", but that applies to remarks, tempo, etc. The question is whether East could have known that the double out of turn "would be likely" to damage the opposition, not that it surely "would." You are weakening your argument by the use of "would," which I am sure was inadvertent. > > (snip) > So, if 2H is opened on your left, and you cannot make a penalty > double, whether partner passes or not, what do you do if you think that > a penalty double would be a good idea? Well, you might silence partner > then double, not because it is *guaranteed* to work, but because it > seems the best odds method. What is wrong with that? Simple, L23 is > there specifically to stop this form of abuse. > Fully agreed. 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 May 24 03:03:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NH3CX14400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 03:03:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NH32t14396 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 03:03:03 +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 MAA09289 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 12:02:34 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:00:05 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <003901c0e351$194544c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$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 11:22 PM 5/22/2001 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: "David Stevenson" > >> OK, but that still does not give you the right to totally ignore the >> wording of L70A. > >Ah, I see the problem. > >L70A: In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result >of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful >points shall be resolved against the claimer. > >Evidently you are interpreting "equitably" to accord with the increasingly >popular but incorrect use of the word: giving each side its perceived >equity in the deal. I interpret it to mean (from my dictionary) fairly, >impartially, justly, rightly, reasonably, even-handedly. As with a revoke, >this does not mean that each side should get the score that a TD thinks is >representative of its equity in the deal. "Equitably" has no connection >with the sense of equity that means a pair's perceived share in the >outcome of a deal. As you interpret it. I have always interpreted it the same way DWS does. For the purposes of L70a, 'equitably' means 'in such a fashion as to produce the result that would have occurred had there been no claim'. (The law then tells us to resolve doubts about this against claimer, and the rest of L70 gives further explication as to how that is to be done.) And, in fact, that's the way virtually all claims are handled--the four players look at the claim, figure out what probably would have happened had the hand been played out, and accept that score. (Usually, the director isn't even called. I am not making any assertion one way or another about whether that's a good thing or not, but it does seem to be true, at least in my experience.) So there are a whole lot of players who think that's what the law means {I do not say they've ever read the law}, there are many TD's who think that, and some intelligent people on this list think that. If the lawmakers intended L70a to mean something very different from that, they certainly made a very bad choice in picking the word 'equitably'! >What L70A says is that the claim should be settled in strict accord with >the rest of L70, and L71, while resolving doubtful points against the >claimer. If a claimer's opponent sees a line of play that invalidates the >claim, then there is no "doubtful point" to be considered--the claim is >invalid. L70 doesn't say that. It says the TD hears objections. It does not say 'if anyone sees a possible line of play consistent with claimer's statement that does not yield the tricks, this invalidates the claim regardless of whether the TD thinks there is any possibility of this line actually being followed'. >Okay, an opponent claims at my table and all hands are tabled. I see a >line of play that invalidates the claim, but it requires partner's good >play. You, as TD, want me to keep quiet and let my partner see it on hir >own. If I comment on the line, then you must decide whether partner would David might. I would prefer you give your partner a chance to see the line, but if he doesn't then you are welcome to state it yourself. If partner sees the line that's pretty good evidence that that line might have actually occurred (granting that we are only discussing cases where it is partner's clever play that is at issue). If he doesn't, that's evidence that he wouldn't have. Neither one, of course, is conclusive. Just as a claimer, had he played out a hand, very often would have seen things that he didn't at the time of his claim, by the same token non-claimers, in playing the hand out, very often would have seen things they don't at the time of a claim. Even if your partner doesn't see it now, he might have seen it had the hand been played out. But it's some evidence. >have been capable of executing it, based on the class of player s/he is. >Of course you have no idea what my partner's "class" is, never having seen >hir before. After some interrogation, you decide that partner would have >been unlikely to find the right line, and allow the claim. If that's what I discover, then I do allow the claim. >This means you find that L70B3 (The Director then hears the opponents' >objections to the claim) could endanger the claimer's equity. You don't I don't. I would just prefer, from an evidential standpoint, that if your objection relies on a clever play by partner you wait until partner has had a chance to raise the objection himself. >want to hear an objection that requires good play by the objector's >partner. If you do hear it, you may have to ask the partner, "Would you >have made that play?" You realize that the answer may be a lie, so you >give it the weight you think appropriate. Of course. OTOH, that weight is rarely zero. >The Laws should not be applied in a way that tempts players to lie. L16A I disagree. As in everything in life that involves gathering evidence, sometimes it will be to someone's advantage to lie. Some people will, therefore, do it, others will not. That's life. I think there are _many_ cases in bridge in which a TD gathers evidence in cases where someone may have an advantage to lie. "Was there a hesitation?" "Why did you pull the 2H bidding card?" "Was the card held so that so-and-so could have seen it?" Etc., etc., etc. >and L73F are carefully worded to avoid this possibility. A bad claim is an Indeed they are. L70, et al, is not. >invalid claim, and should not be allowed if an opponent can see a line of >play that invalidates it. Either opponent, of any class. I disagree, of course. >Marv 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 May 24 04:19:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NIJ0M16296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 04:19:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NIIrt16265 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 04:18:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 23 May 2001 11:14:08 -0700 Message-ID: <009e01c0e3b4$a7da64a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200105231558.IAA31789@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:12:05 -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" > It is enough, if you adopt the ACBL's definition of "likely" that it > uses for Law 12C2, which means having a 1/3 probability at least. For the umpteenth time, "the most favorable result that was likely" may not be (in standard idiomatic English) a likely result. The ACBLLC did not define "likely" as at least a 1/3 probability; it defined "the most favorable result that was likely" as at least a 1/3 probability. 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 May 24 04:33:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NIWub21291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 04:32:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NIWmt21257 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 04:32:49 +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 LAA02121; Wed, 23 May 2001 11:32:05 -0700 Message-Id: <200105231832.LAA02121@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 May 2001 11:12:05 PDT." <009e01c0e3b4$a7da64a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:32:05 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > It is enough, if you adopt the ACBL's definition of "likely" that it > > uses for Law 12C2, which means having a 1/3 probability at least. > > For the umpteenth time, "the most favorable result that was likely" may > not be (in standard idiomatic English) a likely result. The ACBLLC did not > define "likely" as at least a 1/3 probability; it defined "the most > favorable result that was likely" as at least a 1/3 probability. OK, so the ACBLLC said "The most favorable result that was likely" means "The most favorable result that has at least a 1/3 probability." Isn't this the same as saying that, for the purposes of L12C2, "likely" means "having at least a 1/3 probability"? Of course, we can't conclude that ACBLLC has said "likely" means "1/3 probability or greater" everywhere else in the Laws. But it does imply that to interpret "likely" as meaning "at least 1/3 probability" elsewhere in the Laws would not be clearly wrong. And I gave other reasons why it would be a good idea to interpret the word as broadly as possible in L23. If you believe I'm claiming that we must interpret "likely" in L23 as meaning "1/3 probability" because the ACBLLC said so, you've misunderstood me. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 24 07:51:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NLoXm05277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 07:50:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NLoNt05269 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 07:50:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 14:44:48 -0700 Message-ID: <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:38:18 -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" >Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >From: "David Stevenson" > > > >> OK, but that still does not give you the right to totally ignore the > >> wording of L70A. > > > > > >Evidently you are interpreting "equitably" to accord with the increasingly > >popular but incorrect use of the word: giving each side its perceived > >equity in the deal. I interpret it to mean (from my dictionary) fairly, > >impartially, justly, rightly, reasonably, even-handedly. As with a revoke, > >this does not mean that each side should get the score that a TD thinks is > >representative of its equity in the deal. "Equitably" has no connection > >with the sense of equity that means a pair's perceived share in the > >outcome of a deal. > > As you interpret it. I have always interpreted it the same way > DWS does. For the purposes of L70a, 'equitably' means 'in such a > fashion as to produce the result that would have occurred had there been > no claim'. What dictionary can you quote to back up your interpretation? > And, in fact, that's the way virtually all claims are > handled--the four players look at the claim, figure out what probably > would have happened had the hand been played out, and accept that score. That's fine if the claim is not disputed. If it is disputed, the TD *must* be called to settle the matter. > (Usually, the director isn't even called. Violating L68D. if a claim is disputed. Law violations should not be tolerated. > I am not making any assertion > one way or another about whether that's a good thing or not, but it > does seem to be true, at least in my experience.) So there are a whole > lot of players who think that's what the law means {I do not say they've > ever read the law}, there are many TD's who think that, and some > intelligent people on this list think that. If the lawmakers intended > L70a to mean something very different from that, they certainly made > a very bad choice in picking the word 'equitably'! It is the right word. It does not mean that each side should get a result that represents their equity in the deal. > > >What L70A says is that the claim should be settled in strict accord with > >the rest of L70, and L71, while resolving doubtful points against the > >claimer. If a claimer's opponent sees a line of play that invalidates the > >claim, then there is no "doubtful point" to be considered--the claim is > >invalid. > > L70 doesn't say that. It says the TD hears objections. It does > not say 'if anyone sees a possible line of play consistent with claimer's > statement that does not yield the tricks, this invalidates the claim > regardless of whether the TD thinks there is any possibility of this > line actually being followed'. As it should, but I suppose the lawmakers thought this would go without saying. It also does not say, "If either opponent sees a possible line of play that does not yield the tricks, the Director should judge whether the line would have been possible, invalidating the claim if he believes it would not." In my 53 years of bridge I have seen many invalid claims, and never did the claimer (or TD) argue against my objection on the basis that our side would not have executed the line of play I point out. Well, it did happen once, but the ACBL Chief Tournament Director (Gary Blaiss) said that the TD had no right to rule that way, and I got a letter of apology from the TD, an Associate National Director. So, no matter what you believe, I have the ACBL on my side. > > >Okay, an opponent claims at my table and all hands are tabled. I see a > >line of play that invalidates the claim, but it requires partner's good > >play. You, as TD, want me to keep quiet and let my partner see it on hir > >own. If I comment on the line, then you must decide whether partner would > > David might. I would prefer you give your partner a chance to > see the line, but if he doesn't then you are welcome to state it > yourself. Doesn't matter what you or David prefer. L68D gives "any player (dummy included)" the right to dispute a claim, and L70B3's "hears the opponents' objections" does not even hint of an ordering of the objections. > If partner sees the line that's pretty good evidence that > that line might have actually occurred (granting that we are only > discussing cases where it is partner's clever play that is at issue). > If he doesn't, that's evidence that he wouldn't have. Neither one, of > course, is conclusive. Just as a claimer, had he played out a hand, > very often would have seen things that he didn't at the time of his > claim, by the same token non-claimers, in playing the hand out, very > often would have seen things they don't at the time of a claim. Even if > your partner doesn't see it now, he might have seen it had the hand been > played out. But it's some evidence. But you have no way to use that evidence, unless you think L12C3 logic can be used here. You make the point for me: there is no way to tell if a player would have found the right line if the hand were played out. Therefore it must be assumed (but the TD cannot point it out). > > >have been capable of executing it, based on the class of player s/he is. > >Of course you have no idea what my partner's "class" is, never having seen > >hir before. After some interrogation, you decide that partner would have > >been unlikely to find the right line, and allow the claim. > > If that's what I discover, then I do allow the claim. Now you contradict yourself. "Even if your partner doesn't see it now, he might have seen it had the hand been played out." Your words!This is a binary decision in which "partial weight" has no role to play. This policy simplifies the TD task immensely. It is "equitable" because the same bad claim will be ruled against uniformly regardless of who the opponents are, with the only proviso that one opponent sees a line of play that invalidates it. > > >This means you find that L70B3 (The Director then hears the opponents' > >objections to the claim) could endanger the claimer's equity. You don't > > I don't. I would just prefer, from an evidential standpoint, that > if your objection relies on a clever play by partner you wait until > partner has had a chance to raise the objection himself. Doesn't matter what you or David would prefer. I am entitled to speak first, although the order is not important. I tell my partners to keep their mouths shut, let me handle claims, and don't contradict anything I say. So much for your "evidence." > > >want to hear an objection that requires good play by the objector's > >partner. If you do hear it, you may have to ask the partner, "Would you > >have made that play?" You realize that the answer may be a lie, so you > >give it the weight you think appropriate. > > Of course. OTOH, that weight is rarely zero. My partner doesn't answer the question, considering it improper. Taking the fifth, you might call it. > > >The Laws should not be applied in a way that tempts players to lie. > > I disagree. As in everything in life that involves gathering > evidence, sometimes it will be to someone's advantage to lie. Some > people will, therefore, do it, others will not. That's life. I > think there are _many_ cases in bridge in which a TD gathers evidence > in cases where someone may have an advantage to lie. "Was there a > hesitation?" "Why did you pull the 2H bidding card?" "Was the card > held so that so-and-so could have seen it?" Etc., etc., etc. Answers to those questions are irrelevant, except for an answer that both sides can agree on. It is better to avoid such questions when the answer could be self-serving. Do not tempt a player to lie, it's unfair to the truthful ones. > > > L70A and L73F are carefully worded to avoid this possibility. > Indeed they are. L70, et al, is not. Why invent a procedure that is contrary to that principle when it isn't required? > > A bad claim is an invalid claim, and should not be allowed if an opponent can see a line of > > play that invalidates it. Either opponent, of any class. > > I disagree, of course. > Ditto 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 May 24 07:51:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NLoXk05278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 07:50:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NLoPt05270 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 07:50:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 14:44:49 -0700 Message-ID: <00b501c0e3d2$1247b320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010523134041.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:41:41 -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: "alain gottcheiner" > Why not look at the results at other tables, then enquire > as to whether they were attained after a 2H opening, then take the most > favourable to NS ? > Looking at the results at other tables is never correct. They are completely irrelevant. 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 May 24 07:59:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NLxid05314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 07:59:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NLxdt05310 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 07:59:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 23 May 2001 14:54:53 -0700 Message-ID: <00c201c0e3d3$79f248e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200105231832.LAA02121@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:53:31 -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: > > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > > It is enough, if you adopt the ACBL's definition of "likely" that it > > > uses for Law 12C2, which means having a 1/3 probability at least. > > > > For the umpteenth time, "the most favorable result that was likely" may > > not be (in standard idiomatic English) a likely result. The ACBLLC did not > > define "likely" as at least a 1/3 probability; it defined "the most > > favorable result that was likely" as at least a 1/3 probability. > > OK, so the ACBLLC said "The most favorable result that was likely" > means "The most favorable result that has at least a 1/3 probability." > Isn't this the same as saying that, for the purposes of L12C2, > "likely" means "having at least a 1/3 probability"? Of course, we > can't conclude that ACBLLC has said "likely" means "1/3 probability or > greater" everywhere else in the Laws. But it does imply that to > interpret "likely" as meaning "at least 1/3 probability" elsewhere in > the Laws would not be clearly wrong. And I gave other reasons why it > would be a good idea to interpret the word as broadly as possible in > L23. If you believe I'm claiming that we must interpret "likely" in > L23 as meaning "1/3 probability" because the ACBLLC said so, you've > misunderstood me. > Adam, you are very intelligent, but you have a blind spot here. "Likely" by itself means (generally, but not always) better than a 50% chance. When combined with the words "the most favorable result that was," as in L12C2, it means a likelihood that may be low, but is not insignificant. If I ride my bike without a helmet, what is the worst thing that is likely to happen to me? Answer: I could get killed. That doesn't mean the possibility is likely. And it doesn't mean a 1/3 chance either. That LC interpretation was just a guideline for L12C2 application, not to be taken literally. 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 Thu May 24 08:56:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NMtah05555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 08:55:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4NMtTt05551 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 08:55:30 +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 152hWg-0003mg-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 May 2001 23:54:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 19:27:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Nomenclature MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There seem to me to be three methods of applying L12C3. The WBF say that a TD or AC should calculate the weightings as accurately as possible, apply them to both sides, and routinely apply a PP to the offenders to discourage the infraction. The EBL say that a TD or AC should calculate the weightings with a benefit of doubt to the non-offenders, apply them to both sides, and allow the benefit of doubt to discourage the infraction and to make sure that the non-offenders are not damaged if the TD or AC has the weightings slightly wrong. Some authorities suggest calculating the weighting as the EBL suggests but only for the non-offenders, and give the offenders their normal score under L12C2, ie weighting should only be give to non-offenders. Now, feel free to discuss the merits of these as you see fit, but please give a thought to *nomenclature* for just a moment: since this subject is likely to be discussed in future at various times and various levels it would be helpful to have some labels so people know which approach is being discussed, or referred to. You could call the first method the World method, the second the European, and the third the American [the last since, while L12C3 is not enabled there, there are some efforts to get it enabled on the third basis]. Alternatively and similarly you could call them the WBF, EBL and ACBL methods. But I do not like this. If Romania [for example] was to adopt the third method, they would not want to say they are adopting an American method: the name is prejudicial. Of course, we could call them Method A, B, C or the like, but that is not memorable. So what I should like are three names for the three methods that are not prejudicial, and are easy to remember. Any offers, please? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 24 08:56:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NMtTf05550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 08:55:29 +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-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 f4NMtLt05545 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 08:55:23 +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 152hWZ-0003mc-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 May 2001 23:54:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:39:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003901c0e351$194544c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003901c0e351$194544c0$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" >> OK, but that still does not give you the right to totally ignore the >> wording of L70A. >Ah, I see the problem. > >L70A: In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result >of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful >points shall be resolved against the claimer. > >Evidently you are interpreting "equitably" to accord with the increasingly >popular but incorrect use of the word: giving each side its perceived >equity in the deal. No, certainly not. This is a very easy sentence to comprehend, well within my own limited abilities in English. > I interpret it to mean (from my dictionary) fairly, >impartially, justly, rightly, reasonably, even-handedly. As do I! > As with a revoke, >this does not mean that each side should get the score that a TD thinks is >representative of its equity in the deal. "Equitably" has no connection >with the sense of equity that means a pair's perceived share in the >outcome of a deal. Agreed. >What L70A says is that the claim should be settled in strict accord with >the rest of L70, and L71, while resolving doubtful points against the >claimer. If a claimer's opponent sees a line of play that invalidates the >claim, then there is no "doubtful point" to be considered--the claim is >invalid. Wrong. That is not fair, impartial, just, right, reasonable or even- handed. >Okay, an opponent claims at my table and all hands are tabled. I see a >line of play that invalidates the claim, but it requires partner's good >play. You, as TD, want me to keep quiet and let my partner see it on hir >own. If I comment on the line, then you must decide whether partner would >have been capable of executing it, based on the class of player s/he is. >Of course you have no idea what my partner's "class" is, never having seen >hir before. After some interrogation, you decide that partner would have >been unlikely to find the right line, and allow the claim. > >This means you find that L70B3 (The Director then hears the opponents' >objections to the claim) could endanger the claimer's equity. You don't >want to hear an objection that requires good play by the objector's >partner. If you do hear it, you may have to ask the partner, "Would you >have made that play?" You realize that the answer may be a lie, so you >give it the weight you think appropriate. > >The Laws should not be applied in a way that tempts players to lie. L16A >and L73F are carefully worded to avoid this possibility. A bad claim is an >invalid claim, and should not be allowed if an opponent can see a line of >play that invalidates it. Either opponent, of any class. I neither believe that should be the Law, nor do I believe it is the Law. If a particular play is not going to happen, in my view, then I do not believe that ruling it would have happened can be described as "fairly, impartially, justly, rightly, reasonably or even-handedly". -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 24 10:06:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4O06LP05754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:06:21 +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 f4O06Ft05749 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:06:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08438; Wed, 23 May 2001 17:05:26 -0700 Message-Id: <200105240005.RAA08438@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 May 2001 19:27:22 BST." Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:05:26 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > There seem to me to be three methods of applying L12C3. > > The WBF say that a TD or AC should calculate the weightings as > accurately as possible, apply them to both sides, and routinely apply a > PP to the offenders to discourage the infraction. > > The EBL say that a TD or AC should calculate the weightings with a > benefit of doubt to the non-offenders, apply them to both sides, and > allow the benefit of doubt to discourage the infraction and to make sure > that the non-offenders are not damaged if the TD or AC has the > weightings slightly wrong. > > Some authorities suggest calculating the weighting as the EBL suggests > but only for the non-offenders, and give the offenders their normal > score under L12C2, ie weighting should only be give to non-offenders. > > Now, feel free to discuss the merits of these as you see fit, but > please give a thought to *nomenclature* for just a moment: since this > subject is likely to be discussed in future at various times and various > levels it would be helpful to have some labels so people know which > approach is being discussed, or referred to. > > You could call the first method the World method, the second the > European, and the third the American [the last since, while L12C3 is not > enabled there, there are some efforts to get it enabled on the third > basis]. Alternatively and similarly you could call them the WBF, EBL > and ACBL methods. > > But I do not like this. If Romania [for example] was to adopt the > third method, they would not want to say they are adopting an American > method: the name is prejudicial. > > Of course, we could call them Method A, B, C or the like, but that is > not memorable. > > So what I should like are three names for the three methods that are > not prejudicial, and are easy to remember. Any offers, please? My first thought was to name them something like (A) Call weighting (B) Ladyin weighting (C) Watchingand weighting but I eventually decided this was too silly even to post to BLML. Here's a possibility: (A) True weighting (B) Compensatory weighting (C) Asymmetric weighting based on the idea that (A) we're trying to get as close to the true percentages as possible; (B) we're more concerned about making sure the NO's receive sufficient compensation than getting at the true percentages; and (C) because we're only doing it for one side. -- 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 May 24 10:51:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4O0p8S05903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:51:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4O0p2t05898 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:51:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 17:45:26 -0700 Message-ID: <00d801c0e3eb$49750780$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:41:53 -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 Stevenson" > > Of course, we could call them Method A, B, C or the like, but that is > not memorable. > > So what I should like are three names for the three methods that are > not prejudicial, and are easy to remember. Any offers, please? > Finding descriptive names is difficult. Equity/PP, Weighted Equity, etc. seem clumsy. Why not honor (or dishonor :)) the chief proponent of each method by naming it after that person. Grattan espouses A, I believe, so there's a start. 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 May 24 10:53:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4O0ror05923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:53:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f4O0rit05919 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:53:44 +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 152jN6-0006Jp-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 May 2001 00:53:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 01:41:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$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: "Grant Sterling" >>Marvin L. French wrote: >> And, in fact, that's the way virtually all claims are >> handled--the four players look at the claim, figure out what probably >> would have happened had the hand been played out, and accept that score. > >That's fine if the claim is not disputed. If it is disputed, the TD *must* >be called to settle the matter. > >> (Usually, the director isn't even called. > >Violating L68D. if a claim is disputed. Law violations should not be >tolerated. Please make your mind up. You have just said it is fine not to call the TD if the claim is not disputed, and now you say it is a Law violation. The players discussing the claim is not necessarily a dispute. Once it becomes one, certainly the TD must be called. [s] >So, no matter what you >believe, I have the ACBL on my side. SHHRRRRIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK !!!!!!!! [s] >Doesn't matter what you or David prefer. L68D gives "any player (dummy >included)" the right to dispute a claim, and L70B3's "hears the opponents' >objections" does not even hint of an ordering of the objections. True. But it will affect the ruling under L70A, and it would be better for dummy to shut up at such a time. > >> If partner sees the line that's pretty good evidence that >> that line might have actually occurred (granting that we are only >> discussing cases where it is partner's clever play that is at issue). >> If he doesn't, that's evidence that he wouldn't have. Neither one, of >> course, is conclusive. Just as a claimer, had he played out a hand, >> very often would have seen things that he didn't at the time of his >> claim, by the same token non-claimers, in playing the hand out, very >> often would have seen things they don't at the time of a claim. Even if >> your partner doesn't see it now, he might have seen it had the hand been >> played out. But it's some evidence. > >But you have no way to use that evidence, unless you think L12C3 logic can >be used here. You make the point for me: there is no way to tell if a >player would have found the right line if the hand were played out. >Therefore it must be assumed (but the TD cannot point it out). No need to try to confuse us: L12C3 has nothing whatever to do with it, since it does not apply to claims at all. Your presumption that a line "must be assumed" has no basis: it need not be assumed where it conflicts with L70A. [s] >Doesn't matter what you or David would prefer. I am entitled to speak >first, although the order is not important. I tell my partners to keep >their mouths shut, let me handle claims, and don't contradict anything I >say. So much for your "evidence." Telling your partner not contradict anything you say can be quite unethical. Are you suggesting your partner should lie if asked a direct question by the TD? Anyway, on some occasions your methods will lead to you being rightly ruled against. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 24 11:19:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4O1JWh05988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 11:19:32 +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-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 f4O1JQt05982 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 11:19:26 +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 152jly-000Gr4-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 May 2001 02:18:43 +0100 Message-ID: <4e1QnbCk0FD7EwbM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 02:00:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature References: <00d801c0e3eb$49750780$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00d801c0e3eb$49750780$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" >> Of course, we could call them Method A, B, C or the like, but that is >> not memorable. >> >> So what I should like are three names for the three methods that are >> not prejudicial, and are easy to remember. Any offers, please? >Finding descriptive names is difficult. Equity/PP, Weighted Equity, etc. >seem clumsy. > >Why not honor (or dishonor :)) the chief proponent of each method by >naming it after that person. Grattan espouses A, I believe, so there's a >start. I am not sure he does, but I can leave him to tell us. I seem to have been trying to persuade people towards B in various forums. C is certainly favoured by Burn and Colker. But whether using proper names is the answer, I am not sure. I think Endicott, Stevenson, Burn/Colker or whatever is easier to remember than A, B, C, true, but it still seems prejudicial. Would Romania want to say "we use the Burn/Colker method"? True, that sounds better than the American method or the European method.. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 24 17:09:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4O78Lo03786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:08:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4O789t03778 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:08:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4O77Pb23994 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 May 2001 08:07:25 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 08:07 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn 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: <200105231558.IAA31789@mailhub.irvine.com> > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > In-Reply-To: <200105230000.RAA16861@mailhub.irvine.com> > > Adam wrote: > > > > > No, we're not. All L72B1 and L23 require are that East "could have > > > known" that the enforced pass "would be LIKELY" to damage the > > > non-offending side. As I see it, whenever someone has a lot of good > > > trumps and cannot make a penalty double because of their agreements, > > > but the enforced pass allows them to make a penalty double, this > > > makes > > > it LIKELY enough (from offender's point of view) that the enforced > > > pass will damage the other side. It doesn't matter whether this is > > > actually the best contract on the actual lie of the cards, or how > > > many > > > possible layouts there are in which E-W have a better spot than > > > defending doubled. > > > > Aren't you confusing *likely* with *possible*? > > Not really. As you mention later, "likely" is used elsewhere in the > Laws to mean something that we wouldn't necessarily use the term > "likely" for in English. Since it's important not to penalize > non-offenders for their opponents' irregularities (and since, as David > pointed out, it's important to prevent abuse), I think it's necessary > to read "likely" in as broad a way as possible. Perhaps. Had it been IMPs then the appeal of "a solid plus" might outweigh the fact that it's not usually the optimum contract. I don't think this applies at MPs. As for preventing abuse I consider resorting to 72B as pathetic*. If the TD thinks it was deliberate cheating he should damn well rule that way and kick the player out. 72B is sufficient to protect players against damage from *accidental* illegalities and should be used in that context. > > Surely if offender can see that on 90% of the probable layouts > > barring partner would lead to an inferior contract it is not likely > > that the pass will damage NOS. Now this case is closer. Gut feel > > tells me that the figure is around 60-65%. Again not enough to > > expect damage to be likely. > > It is enough, if you adopt the ACBL's definition of "likely" that it > uses for Law 12C2, which means having a 1/3 probability at least. Not unreasonable, but to me the context is different and I am comfortable with the differing interpretations. (Obviously I think the wording would benefit from being clarified/changed if this is the case). > As for gut feelings, mine tells me that playing 2Hx is more likely to > cause damage than your gut does. (Mostly because of those nice trump > spots.) I'm tempted to try a simulation, but I don't think I have > time. Perhaps, but good trump spots sitting under may not be so useful. First I expect trumps will often be 6124 round the table to me and that partner will lead one. A single dummy entry will hold me to 2 trump tricks even with AQT9. Tim * Not a TD, not in the US, and thus unlikely to end up in an expensive court case for this belief. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 24 17:09:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4O79Lu03821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:09:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4O79Ft03814 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:09:16 +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 RAA27133 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:13:57 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:00:00 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] More PPs on TDs To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 17:06:40 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 24/05/2001 05:04:23 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was non-playing TD for my local club's session of an Australia-wide simultaneous pairs last night. Since this small club did not own a dealing machine, I had previously duplicated the boards by hand. But when I did so, I had infracted L13 on one of the boards - stealing East's ace of spades and giving it to South as a fourteenth card. When this board first came into play last night, Murphy's footnote to L13 saw East counting her 12 cards, but South not bothering to count his 14 and glancing at his hand before I was summoned. Question 1: Should I have ordered a redeal under L6D1? While it was the first time this deal was to be played at my club, it was not the first time the deal was played in the overall Australia-wide event. Question 2: If alternatively I gave an artificial score under L13B2, what percentage should I award NS? South had violated L7B1, but that would have been an inconsequential infraction if the irrational TD had not fouled the board. At the table, I determined that South's glance at his cards had been very brief. Therefore, I transferred the ace of spades back to East hand, showed South his correct hand, and asked him if he could identify what the missing 14th card was. He was unable to do so. As I knew South was a player of unimpeachable integrity, I ruled that the board could be played under L13A1. Furthermore, it is possible that a PP should have also have been given to the irrational national organiser of the Australia-wide event. To assist with the compilation of the simultaneous pairs booklet, the organiser used the hand records (and travelling scoresheets) of a walk-in pairs played at his club some months previously. Question 3: Therefore, was the entire Australia-wide simultaneous pairs event illegal under L6D2? Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 24 17:31:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4O7VSQ04462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:31:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4O7VLt04457 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:31:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-43-176.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.43.176]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4O7U4L06666; Thu, 24 May 2001 08:30:05 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001b01c0e423$6322fec0$b02b7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <00d801c0e3eb$49750780$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4e1QnbCk0FD7EwbM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 08:28:57 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 2:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature > >Why not honor (or dishonor :)) the chief > proponent of each method by naming it > after that person. Grattan espouses A, I > believe, so there's a start. > +=+ This rather distorts my position. I share with Kojak the view that it is technically superior. More to the point it was adopted by the WBF Tournament Appeals Committee at the pre-tournament meeting in Maastricht. I consider method B a good pragmatic approach. The EBL Tournament Appeals Committee has never formally adopted it, as far as I am aware, but if you go back over its published appeals rulings you will find it in operation in practice. EBL TACs commonly award the same score to the whole table (the original concept of adjusting the score achieved at the table) and very rarely, if ever, award a separate penalty. Departures from this practice are remarkably few. This has been the case for a long time: the EBL fought for 12C3 so that it had freedom to continue with its pre-1987 approach. If method B were to receive universal adoption I would be comfortable with it. I do not consider method C treats the OS fairly. Equity involves some balance between the two sides. In this I am keeping faith with the EBL attitude that led it to argue for 12C3. I believe personally that the majority of violations are misjudgements of appropriate action due to the difficulty for players to be objective about their own actions (especially in the lower echelons of the game). In my opinion the appeals committee is not a place for vindictiveness. But what is important is to be aware that the custodians of the CoP think it should be left to regulators to choose amongst them, have said so, and this is my 'official' position. Names? How about the Maastricht Method, the Malta Method (which I have used in illustration of what the EBL does), and the Mixed Method? ~ 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 May 24 17:36:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4O7aBo04626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:36:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4O7a2t04617 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:36:03 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 732982A5439; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:35:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 15B432A5448 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:35:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 12871 invoked from network); 24 May 2001 07:35:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 24 May 2001 07:35:14 -0000 Message-ID: <3B0CB7DE.8030406@interia.pl> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:27:26 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: <3.0.6.32.20010523134041.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00b501c0e3d2$1247b320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 5d1d0acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > From: "alain gottcheiner" > >> Why not look at the results at other tables, then enquire >> as to whether they were attained after a 2H opening, then take the most >> favourable to NS ? >> > Looking at the results at other tables is never correct. They are > completely irrelevant. There are irrelevant in a sense that you cannot rule along the lines "you guys got 95% anyway, so score stands". But looking at the scores at the other tables might be helpful if you try to work what an AssAS might be. Suppose NS failed to bid 4H because they were misinformed. You adjust to 4H and now you have to work out how many tricks are available in this contract. There are lines that lead to 10, 11 or 12 tricks. I think it *is* correct to check how many tricks other declarers in 4H in fact took. If the score sheet looks like: 50 tables 25 times 620 15 times 650 10 times 680 then I don't see anything wrong in adjusting to 50% * 620 + 30% * 650 + 20% * 680 for NOs and to -680 for Os. Yes I know I am oversimplifying; if, for example, I have a reason to believe that this particular declarer would have taken more tricks than an average declarer in the room then I might modify the %s accordingly. Still I see nothing wrong in consulting the scores at the other tables *only* for the purpose of trying to work out how the bidding/play might go had the infraction not occured. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -------------------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A------------------------ Superoferta na Dzien Dziecka. Porsche 911 Carrera Burago za 25,50 zl http://hiperia.interia.pl/show_product.dhtml?f_product_id=5230 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 24 17:56:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4O7ujq05239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:56:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4O7uZt05230 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:56:36 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id AC6522A54D7; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:55:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 9765B2A55A8 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:55:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 4173 invoked from network); 24 May 2001 07:55:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 24 May 2001 07:55:18 -0000 Message-ID: <3B0CBD7F.40603@interia.pl> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:51:27 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature References: <00d801c0e3eb$49750780$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4e1QnbCk0FD7EwbM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: b7eaaacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > But whether using proper names is the answer, I am not sure. I think > Endicott, Stevenson, Burn/Colker or whatever is easier to remember than > A, B, C, true, but it still seems prejudicial. Would Romania want to > say "we use the Burn/Colker method"? If they adopt this method they might call it "Burnescu/Colkerescu" which I guess no longer sounds prejudical. :-) How about a) balanced b) balanced with compesation c) unbalanced Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -------------------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A------------------------ Superoferta na Dzien Dziecka. LEGO: Wyspa Dinozaurów za 320,- zl http://hiperia.interia.pl/show_product.dhtml?f_product_id=86693 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 24 20:35:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4OAYgw09732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 20:34:42 +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 f4OAYXt09724 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 20:34:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-37-240.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.37.240]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4OAXKL03456; Thu, 24 May 2001 11:33:20 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <011901c0e43c$e6556260$f0257bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <00d801c0e3eb$49750780$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4e1QnbCk0FD7EwbM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001b01c0e423$6322fec0$b02b7bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:31:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature > +=+ I suggested: > Names? How about the Maastricht > Method, the Malta Method (which I have > used in illustration of what the EBL does), > and the Mixed Method? > > +=+ Rider to the above. I find mention in the Boston Appeals. 'The Massachusetts Method'? - oh, well, MA for short. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 24 22:31:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4OCUka23229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 22:30:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f4OCUct23181 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 22:30:39 +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 f4OCTrK95900 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 08:29:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@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, 24 May 2001 08:30:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:38 PM 5/23/01, Marvin wrote: >From: "Grant Sterling" > > >Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >want to hear an objection that requires good play by the objector's > > >partner. If you do hear it, you may have to ask the partner, > "Would you > > >have made that play?" You realize that the answer may be a lie, so you > > >give it the weight you think appropriate. > > > > Of course. OTOH, that weight is rarely zero. > >My partner doesn't answer the question, considering it improper. Taking >the fifth, you might call it. > > > > >The Laws should not be applied in a way that tempts players to lie. > > > > I disagree. As in everything in life that involves gathering > > evidence, sometimes it will be to someone's advantage to lie. Some > > people will, therefore, do it, others will not. That's life. I > > think there are _many_ cases in bridge in which a TD gathers evidence > > in cases where someone may have an advantage to lie. "Was there a > > hesitation?" "Why did you pull the 2H bidding card?" "Was the card > > held so that so-and-so could have seen it?" Etc., etc., etc. > >Answers to those questions are irrelevant, except for an answer that both >sides can agree on. It is better to avoid such questions when the answer >could be self-serving. Do not tempt a player to lie, it's unfair to the >truthful ones. More to the point, Grant's analogy simply doesn't hold. Most players are basically honest: if asked a question about what actually transpired at the table, or even about what they were thinking about, they will give an honest and truthful answer. But when asked, "Would you have made that play?" many will say, "Yes, of course I would," pretty much automatically. It's not really a lie -- just a misjudgment of one's own ability and/or level of concentration. I have learned from BLML that if I am asked such a question, I will say, with complete honesty (assuming it to be the case, as it likely would be), "I don't know, and I'm not about to waste my energy on a hypothetical single-dummy analysis of a hand that's already back in the box just so I can guess what I would have done without seeing all four hands." In my pre-BLML days, though, I'd have expended the effort, and tried to give a (different) honest answer. That gives me an advantage over most totally honest and ethical non-BLMLers that I shouldn't have. When the questioned player replies with, "Yes, of course I would," we discount the reply as self-serving, because we recognize that the "true" answer is probably something along the lines of mine. So we do -- and should -- treat both answers the same way. Which means we have gained nothing by asking. And we have done a disservice to precisely those players who will try to be as honest and forthcoming as they can by expending the energy to do the analysis and try to figure out, to the best of their abilities, what they really would have figured out in the hypothetical situation where they did not know the hands. And then we'll discount their "Yes"s as just as self-serving as those of the players who answered reflexively, because it's psychologically nearly impossible to say what one would have done without seeing the entire deal after one has seen it. So IMO the question shouldn't be asked, even if we assume that no one will ever deliberately lie in response. 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 May 24 23:35:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ODZQk14070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 23:35:26 +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-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 f4ODZIt14062 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 23:35:19 +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 152vG3-000DvD-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 May 2001 14:34:32 +0100 Message-ID: <$UMvywCE2QD7EwK8@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:32:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature References: <00d801c0e3eb$49750780$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4e1QnbCk0FD7EwbM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001b01c0e423$6322fec0$b02b7bd5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001b01c0e423$6322fec0$b02b7bd5@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001b01c0e423$6322fec0$b02b7bd5@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip > > Names? How about the Maastricht >Method, the Malta Method (which I have >used in illustration of what the EBL does), >and the Mixed Method? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > and there is also the MadDog Method ... :)) -- 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 May 24 23:35:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ODZM514065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 23:35:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4ODZDt14056 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 23:35:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-6.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.6]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4ODYTn16266 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 15:34:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B0CCC66.BC6595DE@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 10:55:02 +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] Nomenclature 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 seem to me to be three methods of applying L12C3. > > The WBF say that a TD or AC should calculate the weightings as > accurately as possible, apply them to both sides, and routinely apply a > PP to the offenders to discourage the infraction. > I would call this the True Expected Value. > The EBL say that a TD or AC should calculate the weightings with a > benefit of doubt to the non-offenders, apply them to both sides, and > allow the benefit of doubt to discourage the infraction and to make sure > that the non-offenders are not damaged if the TD or AC has the > weightings slightly wrong. > I would call that the Adjusted Expected Value. > Some authorities suggest calculating the weighting as the EBL suggests > but only for the non-offenders, and give the offenders their normal > score under L12C2, ie weighting should only be give to non-offenders. > I feel this is incorrect and would call it the American Way. > Now, feel free to discuss the merits of these as you see fit, but > please give a thought to *nomenclature* for just a moment: since this > subject is likely to be discussed in future at various times and various > levels it would be helpful to have some labels so people know which > approach is being discussed, or referred to. > > You could call the first method the World method, the second the > European, and the third the American [the last since, while L12C3 is not > enabled there, there are some efforts to get it enabled on the third > basis]. Alternatively and similarly you could call them the WBF, EBL > and ACBL methods. > > But I do not like this. If Romania [for example] was to adopt the > third method, they would not want to say they are adopting an American > method: the name is prejudicial. > > Of course, we could call them Method A, B, C or the like, but that is > not memorable. > > So what I should like are three names for the three methods that are > not prejudicial, and are easy to remember. Any offers, please? > True Expectation with Penalty. Adjusted Expectation. for want of anything better "American". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 24 23:42:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ODgjF14279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 23:42:45 +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-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 f4ODgct14272 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 23:42:39 +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 152vND-000Imo-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 May 2001 13:41:55 +0000 Message-ID: <3kMt+8CH9QD7EwoK@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:40:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] More PPs on TDs 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 , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >I was non-playing TD for my local club's session of >an Australia-wide simultaneous pairs last night. > >Since this small club did not own a dealing machine, >I had previously duplicated the boards by hand. But >when I did so, I had infracted L13 on one of the boards >- stealing East's ace of spades and giving it to South >as a fourteenth card. > >When this board first came into play last night, >Murphy's footnote to L13 saw East counting her 12 >cards, but South not bothering to count his 14 and >glancing at his hand before I was summoned. > >Question 1: Should I have ordered a redeal under >L6D1? While it was the first time this deal was to be >played at my club, it was not the first time the deal >was played in the overall Australia-wide event. Law 6E4 applies. This is a pre-deal. > >Question 2: If alternatively I gave an artificial >score under L13B2, what percentage should I award >NS? South had violated L7B1, but that would have >been an inconsequential infraction if the irrational >TD had not fouled the board. > >At the table, I determined that South's glance at >his cards had been very brief. Therefore, I >transferred the ace of spades back to East hand, >showed South his correct hand, and asked him if he >could identify what the missing 14th card was. He >was unable to do so. As I knew South was a player >of unimpeachable integrity, I ruled that the >board could be played under L13A1. I think you *must* give the NO's the opportunity to take 60%. I'd award 60/40 if they chose this route. > >Furthermore, it is possible that a PP should have >also have been given to the irrational national >organiser of the Australia-wide event. To assist with >the compilation of the simultaneous pairs booklet, the >organiser used the hand records (and travelling >scoresheets) of a walk-in pairs played at his club >some months previously. > >Question 3: Therefore, was the entire Australia-wide >simultaneous pairs event illegal under L6D2? Probably, unless the advertising stated it was a set of boards played previously - which I think would then be ok under 6E4. Maybe it's ok under that Law anyway. We had a situation some years ago where the Deal program being used generated the same set of hands about three months apart. Alan Woo called the TD on the second hand, which was a routine 3N and told us every card in the opponents hands. He then proceeded to have a miserable evening, and we changed suppliers. > >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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 01:01:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4OF1VO16136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 01:01:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4OF1Lt16129 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 01:01:22 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 065392A5238; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:00:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id D80D92A51E9 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 16:58:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 22472 invoked from network); 24 May 2001 14:58:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 24 May 2001 14:58:42 -0000 Message-ID: <3B0D2104.8080302@interia.pl> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:56:04 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature References: <3B0CCC66.BC6595DE@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 59280acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > I feel this is incorrect and would call it the American Way. Why? If we are talking if it is legal then certainly it is; sadly L12C3 gives the AC the power to do anything they like so they are entitled to adjust that way also. Is the third way of assigning equitable? I'd say yes with great enthiousiasm; otherwise commiting an infraction is a no-lose strategy for the offending-side; they will get what they would have got anyway and sometimes they will get away with murder (because it won't occur the LOLs that their opponents used UI; don't tell me that that this doesn't happen, I've seen this several times in my life). Well, I'm afraid I am the only one here who is so harsh on Os but my favorite way of playing this game would be: If you misinform your opponents you are fined 10 IMPs (or more if the damage was a greater one). If you take advantage of the UI you are fined 10 IMPs (or more if the damage was a greater one). If you revoke... Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ----------------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A---------------------- Superoferta na Dzien Dziecka. Pokemon PIKACHU za 56,80 zl http://hiperia.interia.pl/show_product.dhtml?f_product_id=29373 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 01:06:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4OF6C917730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 01:06:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4OF64t17687 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 01:06:05 +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 KAA04712 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:05:34 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010524100304.007af310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 10:03:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> References: <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:30 AM 5/24/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 05:38 PM 5/23/01, Marvin wrote: > >>From: "Grant Sterling" >> > >The Laws should not be applied in a way that tempts players to lie. >> > >> > I disagree. As in everything in life that involves gathering >> > evidence, sometimes it will be to someone's advantage to lie. Some >> > people will, therefore, do it, others will not. That's life. I >> > think there are _many_ cases in bridge in which a TD gathers evidence >> > in cases where someone may have an advantage to lie. "Was there a >> > hesitation?" "Why did you pull the 2H bidding card?" "Was the card >> > held so that so-and-so could have seen it?" Etc., etc., etc. >> >>Answers to those questions are irrelevant, except for an answer that both >>sides can agree on. It is better to avoid such questions when the answer >>could be self-serving. Do not tempt a player to lie, it's unfair to the >>truthful ones. > >More to the point, Grant's analogy simply doesn't hold. Most players I wasn't making an analogy. I was responding to the claim that the laws should never be enforced in a way that encourages people to lie, the claim that a TD should never ask a question that it would be in the player's best interest sometimes to answer untruthfully. {That is, a player's _bridge_ interests. I think it would be more in my interest to be a truthful person who occasionally gets justly ruled against at the bridge table than a person who receives undeserved bridge benefits by lying.} I am claiming that there are many laws where the TD reasonably asks questions that a player might get a better score by responding to with a lie. >are basically honest: if asked a question about what actually >transpired at the table, or even about what they were thinking about, >they will give an honest and truthful answer. But when asked, "Would >you have made that play?" many will say, "Yes, of course I would," >pretty much automatically. It's not really a lie -- just a misjudgment >of one's own ability and/or level of concentration. So? a) This is precisely why I prefer people to allow their partners a chance to see the clever plays on their own. b) Obviously, I need to take this fact into account in weighing the evidence. But that doesn't make the weight zero. >I have learned from BLML that if I am asked such a question, I will >say, with complete honesty (assuming it to be the case, as it likely >would be), "I don't know, and I'm not about to waste my energy on a >hypothetical single-dummy analysis of a hand that's already back in the >box just so I can guess what I would have done without seeing all four >hands." In my pre-BLML days, though, I'd have expended the effort, and >tried to give a (different) honest answer. That gives me an advantage >over most totally honest and ethical non-BLMLers that I shouldn't have. a) No, it doesn't. As TD, I won't be more likely to rule that you would have found the clever play if you give your answer than if you expended the effort and said "Yes, after the play of the fourth spade I'd be able to see that declarer must have the bare king left". b) I hope the hands aren't back in the box yet. :) >When the questioned player replies with, "Yes, of course I would," we >discount the reply as self-serving, because we recognize that the >"true" answer is probably something along the lines of mine. So we do >-- and should -- treat both answers the same way. Which means we have >gained nothing by asking. And we have done a disservice to precisely >those players who will try to be as honest and forthcoming as they can >by expending the energy to do the analysis and try to figure out, to >the best of their abilities, what they really would have figured out in >the hypothetical situation where they did not know the hands. And then >we'll discount their "Yes"s as just as self-serving as those of the >players who answered reflexively, because it's psychologically nearly >impossible to say what one would have done without seeing the entire >deal after one has seen it. I won't. But, then again, I obviously discount self-serving testimony far less than other TDs do. >So IMO the question shouldn't be asked, even if we assume that no one >will ever deliberately lie in response. If we assume that, then what about the cases where the player says "no"? Won't that ever happen? >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 May 25 01:54:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4OFsMc18812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 01:54:22 +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 f4OFsEt18805 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 01:54:15 +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 KAA19405 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:53:50 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010524105119.00796ae0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 10:51:19 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:38 PM 5/23/2001 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: "Grant Sterling" >> > >> >Evidently you are interpreting "equitably" to accord with the >increasingly >> >popular but incorrect use of the word: giving each side its perceived >> >equity in the deal. I interpret it to mean (from my dictionary) fairly, >> >impartially, justly, rightly, reasonably, even-handedly. As with a >revoke, >> >this does not mean that each side should get the score that a TD thinks >is >> >representative of its equity in the deal. "Equitably" has no connection >> >with the sense of equity that means a pair's perceived share in the >> >outcome of a deal. >> >> As you interpret it. I have always interpreted it the same way >> DWS does. For the purposes of L70a, 'equitably' means 'in such a >> fashion as to produce the result that would have occurred had there been >> no claim'. > >What dictionary can you quote to back up your interpretation? Please, Marvin. While David Burn might prefer that we could explain the laws of bridge to a complete neophyte simply by consulting the dictionary and tacking the definitions of the terms onto each other in a string, I don't think this at all. "Irrational", in the context of the footnote, does not mean "insane", although apparently DB's dictionary gives that as the meaning. [My own dictionary gives "lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence", which is rather closer to my "very careless" interpretation than his "insane" interpretation, but I put no weight whatsoever on this happy coincidence.] You, yourself, will surely agree that "the most favorable result that was likely" could never be understood as "something that will happen one time in three" as a result of reading from a dictionary. "Equitable" means "just", and _in the context of a claim_ I do not think it is just to give a score based on a play that wouldn't have happened had the hand been played out. {{{Interestingly, my dictionary gives several definitions of "equity" that make it clear that equity is to be understood as a natural justice that overrides the strict rule of law, so, by my dictionary, interpreting L70a as holding that "equity" simply means nothing more than "according to the strict procedures of law" would be contraindicated. But, again, that's not how I think laws should be understood. I even enforce L54 when offender's partner hasn't led face-down, and enforce L6b by having the player put each hand in a different pocket, so what do I know? :) }}} >> And, in fact, that's the way virtually all claims are >> handled--the four players look at the claim, figure out what probably >> would have happened had the hand been played out, and accept that score. > >That's fine if the claim is not disputed. If it is disputed, the TD *must* >be called to settle the matter. As I said below, I was neither endorsing nor condemning this procedure, but it is a fact that a very large number of disputed claims are resolved according to the 'what would have happened' principle without the TD being called. I was merely making an empirical claim. >> (Usually, the director isn't even called. > >Violating L68D. if a claim is disputed. Law violations should not be >tolerated. Oh, no! By all means let us level harsh PP's on people who say "You forgot my ace of hearts", 'Oh, right, off one I guess' and score up the hand rather than calling the director. But, again, I was only pointing out that this is what [most, I think] players think the law means. >> I am not making any assertion >> one way or another about whether that's a good thing or not, but it >> does seem to be true, at least in my experience.) So there are a whole >> lot of players who think that's what the law means {I do not say they've >> ever read the law}, there are many TD's who think that, and some >> intelligent people on this list think that. If the lawmakers intended >> L70a to mean something very different from that, they certainly made >> a very bad choice in picking the word 'equitably'! > >It is the right word. It does not mean that each side should get a result >that represents their equity in the deal. Of course not. Who on earth could possibly misinterpret 'adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible' to mean that we should give people their equity in the deal? {Please understand that by 'equity in the deal' I mean 'what the score probably would have been had the hand been played out with no claim', not some other possible notion of equity.} >> L70 doesn't say that. It says the TD hears objections. It does >> not say 'if anyone sees a possible line of play consistent with >claimer's >> statement that does not yield the tricks, this invalidates the claim >> regardless of whether the TD thinks there is any possibility of this >> line actually being followed'. > >As it should, but I suppose the lawmakers thought this would go without >saying. It also does not say, "If either opponent sees a possible line of They are colosally dumb if they thought that it went without saying that TDs should include lines of play that they believe would never have occurred at the table, given the huge number of TDs that have been using the 'what would have happened' method for so many years. I don't think the Lawmakers are colosally dumb. >play that does not yield the tricks, the Director should judge whether the >line would have been possible, invalidating the claim if he believes it >would not." In my 53 years of bridge I have seen many invalid claims, and >never did the claimer (or TD) argue against my objection on the basis that >our side would not have executed the line of play I point out. Well, it I wouldn't expect it to happen often, given that the fact that you have brought it up is surely good evidence that your side could have foudn the play. >did happen once, but the ACBL Chief Tournament Director (Gary Blaiss) said >that the TD had no right to rule that way, and I got a letter of apology >from the TD, an Associate National Director. So, no matter what you >believe, I have the ACBL on my side. Q.e.d. :) [There's one of those pieces of evidence that both sides can see as equally compelling proof of their own views. :)] >> David might. I would prefer you give your partner a chance to >> see the line, but if he doesn't then you are welcome to state it >> yourself. > >Doesn't matter what you or David prefer. L68D gives "any player (dummy >included)" the right to dispute a claim, and L70B3's "hears the opponents' >objections" does not even hint of an ordering of the objections. I do not for a moment dispute your right to dispute the claim. What I am asserting is that the fact that you dispute a claim does not automatically invalidate the claim. Nor do I dispute your right to speak on behalf of partner, or claimer for that matter. I am merely saying that if partner finds the play himself I will take that as whoppingly powerful evidence that he might have found it at the table, while if you announce it first I won't find that nearly as compelling. >> If partner sees the line that's pretty good evidence that >> that line might have actually occurred (granting that we are only >> discussing cases where it is partner's clever play that is at issue). >> If he doesn't, that's evidence that he wouldn't have. Neither one, of >> course, is conclusive. Just as a claimer, had he played out a hand, >> very often would have seen things that he didn't at the time of his >> claim, by the same token non-claimers, in playing the hand out, very >> often would have seen things they don't at the time of a claim. Even if >> your partner doesn't see it now, he might have seen it had the hand been >> played out. But it's some evidence. > >But you have no way to use that evidence, unless you think L12C3 logic can >be used here. You make the point for me: there is no way to tell if a >player would have found the right line if the hand were played out. There is no way to know with certainty what would have happened, I quite agree. I understand why, on your view, that means something. Surely you can understand why, given how _I_ read L70a, that this fact does not support the conclusion "therefore it must be assumed". >Therefore it must be assumed (but the TD cannot point it out). Why not? If the possibility of the line being found has nothing to do with whether it should invalidate the claim, then why shouldn't the TD point out such lines? Or kibitzers? Why not put the hand on the Viewgraph and let everyone have a go at it? >> >have been capable of executing it, based on the class of player s/he >is. >> >Of course you have no idea what my partner's "class" is, never having >seen >> >hir before. After some interrogation, you decide that partner would >have >> >been unlikely to find the right line, and allow the claim. >> >> If that's what I discover, then I do allow the claim. > >Now you contradict yourself. "Even if your partner doesn't see it now, he >might have seen it had the hand been played out." Your words!This is a Not at all. You have told me that after interrogation I have concluded that partner probably wouldn't have found that line. You have given me this as my conclusion, after weighting the evidence I have received. In reaching that conclusion, I must have taken into account the fact that even if partner didn't see the line now, he might have seen it had the hand been played out. Obviously, in this case I must have decided that other evidence outweighed that possibility. >binary decision in which "partial weight" has no role to play. This policy >simplifies the TD task immensely. It is "equitable" because the same bad >claim will be ruled against uniformly regardless of who the opponents are, >with the only proviso that one opponent sees a line of play that >invalidates it. This isn't equitable at all, then. If my partner is clever enough to analyse the hand for me,t he claim will be negated, but if he isn't it won't. The same claim will be allowed in some cases and denied in others, for reasons that have nothing to do with the skill of the player who needed to make the key play. This may fit with your idea of 'fairness' and 'justice', but it does not fit with mine. I will regard it as manifestly unfair if my claim fails because the _partner_ of the key player was a great double-dummy player. >> >This means you find that L70B3 (The Director then hears the opponents' >> >objections to the claim) could endanger the claimer's equity. You don't >> >> I don't. I would just prefer, from an evidential standpoint, that >> if your objection relies on a clever play by partner you wait until >> partner has had a chance to raise the objection himself. > >Doesn't matter what you or David would prefer. I am entitled to speak >first, although the order is not important. I tell my partners to keep >their mouths shut, let me handle claims, and don't contradict anything I >say. So much for your "evidence." Exactly. By doing this, you prevent me from gathering evidence. I do not for a moment dispute your right to speak first. If I am unable to gather the evidence I need, I will make worse decisions. Those decisions will not necessarily be more beneficial to your side, of course, and they will almost certainly be less 'fair', as I understand fairness, and maybe less fair even as you understand it. OTOH, if you tell your partner to refuse to answer my questions and to lie if what you say doesn't correspond to what partner thinks, then I do dispute your right to do those things. L90b8. >> I disagree. As in everything in life that involves gathering >> evidence, sometimes it will be to someone's advantage to lie. Some >> people will, therefore, do it, others will not. That's life. I >> think there are _many_ cases in bridge in which a TD gathers evidence >> in cases where someone may have an advantage to lie. "Was there a >> hesitation?" "Why did you pull the 2H bidding card?" "Was the card >> held so that so-and-so could have seen it?" Etc., etc., etc. > >Answers to those questions are irrelevant, except for an answer that both >sides can agree on. It is better to avoid such questions when the answer How do I know whether both sides agree if I can't ask them? Why should I try to judge whether the pull of a card was inadvertant or deliberate without asking him? Etc. >could be self-serving. Do not tempt a player to lie, it's unfair to the >truthful ones. No, they get their just reward--truthfulness. I hope they're not truthful only because they expect to profit by it. >> > L70A and L73F are carefully worded to avoid this possibility. > >> Indeed they are. L70, et al, is not. > >Why invent a procedure that is contrary to that principle when it isn't >required? I'm not inventing it. It's already there, and has been there for many years, and it works great the vast majority of the time. the laws you cite are the _exceptions_. >Marv 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 May 25 01:59:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4OFwss18929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 01:58:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4OFwmt18923 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 01:58:48 +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 LAA12535 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 11:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA14583 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 May 2001 11:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:58:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200105241558.LAA14583@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > > The WBF say that a TD or AC should calculate the weightings as > > accurately as possible, apply them to both sides, and routinely apply a > > PP to the offenders to discourage the infraction. > > > > I would call this the True Expected Value. Not bad, but a bit long. Also, in my opinion 'weighting' would be a better noun than 'value' because it better describes what you are doing. How about "true weighting" or "expected weighting?" Or "expectation weighting?" > > The EBL say that a TD or AC should calculate the weightings with a > > benefit of doubt to the non-offenders, apply them to both sides, and > > allow the benefit of doubt to discourage the infraction and to make sure > > that the non-offenders are not damaged if the TD or AC has the > > weightings slightly wrong. > > I would call that the Adjusted Expected Value. "Sympathetic Weighting?" Or maybe "Corrective Weighting?" Words such as 'punitive' or 'biased' are correct but too pejorative. 'Adjusted' seems too vague. I like 'sympathetic' because it emphasizes compensation to the NOS rather than punishment of the OS. > > Some authorities suggest calculating the weighting as the EBL suggests > > but only for the non-offenders, and give the offenders their normal > > score under L12C2, ie weighting should only be give to non-offenders. > > I feel this is incorrect and would call it the American Way. :-( There is no "American Way" to apply L12C3, of course. A complete description would be "split score with weighted score for only the NOS," but that's a bit long. "One-way weighted score" or "one-way weighting" might do. ----- If you are going to use L12C3 at all, sympathetic weighting makes the most sense to me. We want to make sure the NOS is fully compensated and also discourage future infractions, and as someone (Grant?) said, not all infractions will be reported. If we are going to adopt this method, how much sympathy should we allow? Suppose there is a 50-50 guess, and as far as we can analyze, there are no clues from the bidding or early play. Under L12C2, there is no problem: we give the NOS the full benefit of getting the guess right. Under "true weighting," we give 50% of each result. What would we give under "sympathetic weighting?" I'd argue for 60% by analogy to artificial scores, but like all arguments by analogy, this one isn't definitive. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 02:29:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4OGT8B19528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 02:29:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4OGT2t19524 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 02:29:03 +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 JAA23587; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:28:20 -0700 Message-Id: <200105241628.JAA23587@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 May 2001 10:55:02 +0200." <3B0CCC66.BC6595DE@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:28:18 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > There seem to me to be three methods of applying L12C3. > > > > The WBF say that a TD or AC should calculate the weightings as > > accurately as possible, apply them to both sides, and routinely apply a > > PP to the offenders to discourage the infraction. > > > > I would call this the True Expected Value. > > > The EBL say that a TD or AC should calculate the weightings with a > > benefit of doubt to the non-offenders, apply them to both sides, and > > allow the benefit of doubt to discourage the infraction and to make sure > > that the non-offenders are not damaged if the TD or AC has the > > weightings slightly wrong. > > > > I would call that the Adjusted Expected Value. > > > Some authorities suggest calculating the weighting as the EBL suggests > > but only for the non-offenders, and give the offenders their normal > > score under L12C2, ie weighting should only be give to non-offenders. > > > > I feel this is incorrect and would call it the American Way. Ah, so your three proposed names boil down to Truth, Justice, and The American Way. OK, I get 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 May 25 07:31:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4OLS6c16725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 07:28:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4OLRtt16668 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 07:27:56 +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 f4OLRAK40311 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010524164600.00af7330@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, 24 May 2001 17:27:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010524100304.007af310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:03 AM 5/24/01, Grant wrote: >At 08:30 AM 5/24/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > >I have learned from BLML that if I am asked such a question, I will > >say, with complete honesty (assuming it to be the case, as it likely > >would be), "I don't know, and I'm not about to waste my energy on a > >hypothetical single-dummy analysis of a hand that's already back in the > >box just so I can guess what I would have done without seeing all four > >hands." In my pre-BLML days, though, I'd have expended the effort, and > >tried to give a (different) honest answer. That gives me an advantage > >over most totally honest and ethical non-BLMLers that I shouldn't have. > > a) No, it doesn't. As TD, I won't be more likely to rule that >you would have found the clever play if you give your answer than if you >expended the effort and said "Yes, after the play of the fourth spade I'd >be able to see that declarer must have the bare king left". No, but I do hope that Grant wouldn't be any less likely to rule that way either. Face it, I've seen all four hands, I know what the correct play is, and I'm good enough to find it most of the time, unless I get distracted or I'm tired or I'm having a bad day. But *would* I have found it if I had gotten that far without seeing all four hands? *I don't know.* If I do the analysis, knowing that there are matchpoints dependent on the outcome, I will of course decide that I would have found it -- after all, I will have done the analysis and seen the need for the play before I answered, whether I would have seen it at the table or not. And we must ask ourselves not only whether it's fair to penalize my attempt at honesty, but also whether it's fair of the TD to make me lose time and mental effort to analyze the hand so as to help him rule. So my answer shouldn't affect the ruling. And if it doesn't, I gain an advantage, not in the score, but by having conserved my time and mental effort. > >When the questioned player replies with, "Yes, of course I would," we > >discount the reply as self-serving, because we recognize that the > >"true" answer is probably something along the lines of mine. So we do > >-- and should -- treat both answers the same way. Which means we have > >gained nothing by asking. And we have done a disservice to precisely > >those players who will try to be as honest and forthcoming as they can > >by expending the energy to do the analysis and try to figure out, to > >the best of their abilities, what they really would have figured out in > >the hypothetical situation where they did not know the hands. And then > >we'll discount their "Yes"s as just as self-serving as those of the > >players who answered reflexively, because it's psychologically nearly > >impossible to say what one would have done without seeing the entire > >deal after one has seen it. > > I won't. But, then again, I obviously discount self-serving >testimony far less than other TDs do. Well, yes. If you're going to put players in a position where they will naturally and inevitably give self-serving testimony, it would be hypocritical to then discount it. > >So IMO the question shouldn't be asked, even if we assume that no one > >will ever deliberately lie in response. > > If we assume that, then what about the cases where the player > says >"no"? Won't that ever happen? Most players, aware of the correct play when asked, will reflexively tell you (because they assume so themselves) that they would have found it single-dummy. But then there are some, like my wife, who will reflexively answer diffidently, with something like, "Oh, gee, I don't know, probably not." So there will be cases where a player says no. The difference between the yesses and the nos will tell you a lot about the personalities of the players, but virtually nothing about whether they would actually have found the play. If you ask, the answer will be neither significant nor useful; it will at best cause most players to do some unnecessary work and take up some unnecessary time, but won't affect their answer, and at worst fluster and/or annoy them as well. So you shouldn't ask. My remarks on this point have been, admittedly, somewhat tangential to the actual subject of debate. On that, I stand with Marv. L68D gives dummy ("any player (dummy included)") the explicit right to dispute the claim. David S.'s interpretation would allow them to do so, but at their own risk, with a real possibility that doing so may result in a less favorable ruling. But if that were intended, I don't see why TFLB would go out of its way to protect that right; on the contrary, I expect it would (and should, if David's interpretation were correct) require dummy to keep silent, in which case the secondary issue that Grant and I have been discussing wouldn't exist. 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 May 25 11:51:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P1nc812873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 11:49:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4P1nVt12869 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 11:49:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-120-137-251.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.120.137.251] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4P1mKL14452; Fri, 25 May 2001 02:48:20 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003301c0e4bc$d0e49600$fb8978d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grant Sterling" , References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com><014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com><3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010524105119.00796ae0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 02:47:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing .------------ \x/ -------------. > {{{Interestingly, my dictionary gives several > definitions of "equity" that make it clear that > equity is to be understood as a natural justice > that overrides the strict rule of law, so, by my > dictionary, interpreting L70a as holding that > "equity" simply means nothing more than > "according to the strict procedures of law" > would be contraindicated. But, again, that's > not how I think laws should be understood. > I even enforce L54 when offender's partner > hasn't led face-down, and enforce L6b by > having the player put each hand in a different > pocket, so what do I know? :) }}} > +=+ This is a good moment to draw attention to the fact that in the official matrix of the 1997 Laws, as promulgated by the WBF, Law 12C3 reads: "12C3: Unless Zonal Organizations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity". In some printings the last five words have been corrupted to read "in order to achieve equity". By its apparent goal of reaching a target described as 'equity', this altered text no longer reflects the intention in the proper wording, which I would paraphrase, in the language of dictionaries, to be "in order to override the statute law by recourse to general principles of justice". ~ 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 May 25 12:37:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P2aGd12909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:36:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f4P2a2t12898 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:36:03 +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 1537Rd-0003jH-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 03:35:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:13:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn 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: <200105231558.IAA31789@mailhub.irvine.com> >> Not really. As you mention later, "likely" is used elsewhere in the >> Laws to mean something that we wouldn't necessarily use the term >> "likely" for in English. Since it's important not to penalize >> non-offenders for their opponents' irregularities (and since, as David >> pointed out, it's important to prevent abuse), I think it's necessary >> to read "likely" in as broad a way as possible. >Perhaps. Had it been IMPs then the appeal of "a solid plus" might >outweigh the fact that it's not usually the optimum contract. I don't >think this applies at MPs. As for preventing abuse I consider resorting to >72B as pathetic*. If the TD thinks it was deliberate cheating he should >damn well rule that way and kick the player out. 72B is sufficient to >protect players against damage from *accidental* illegalities and should >be used in that context. It is rare that a TD can prove a player is cheating, and, in fact, the job of proving cheating is normally one to be left to the National authorities. However, there are many situations where a player might be cheating, but a TD does not know. The player takes an action which is similar to one a cheat might take, but it is not clear whether it was ignorance, stupidity or malice. You cannot treat such a situation as cheating, and it is not pathetic not to consider such a situation as cheating. It is sensible. But you do not want someone to gain, and L72B1 has been written in such a way as to stop people gaining. You treat apparent abuses the same way whether they are cheating or not so the player does not gain. L72B1 is a great addition to the Law book because it deals with deliberate but unprovable irregularities: *that* is its main advantage. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 12:37:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P2aFl12908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:36:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4P2a2t12896 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:36:03 +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 1537Rd-0003jG-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 03:35:18 +0100 Message-ID: <$rEB6bAiTQD7EwpA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:56:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: <3.0.6.32.20010523134041.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00b501c0e3d2$1247b320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B0CB7DE.8030406@interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <3B0CB7DE.8030406@interia.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 >Marvin L. French wrote: >> From: "alain gottcheiner" >> >>> Why not look at the results at other tables, then enquire >>> as to whether they were attained after a 2H opening, then take the most >>> favourable to NS ? >>> >> Looking at the results at other tables is never correct. They are >> completely irrelevant. >There are irrelevant in a sense that you cannot rule along the lines >"you guys >got 95% anyway, so score stands". But looking at the scores at the other >tables might be helpful if you try to work what an AssAS might be. Suppose >NS failed to bid 4H because they were misinformed. You adjust to 4H >and now you have to work out how many tricks are available in this contract. >There are lines that lead to 10, 11 or 12 tricks. I think it *is* correct to >check how many tricks other declarers in 4H in fact took. If the score sheet >looks like: > >50 tables > >25 times 620 >15 times 650 >10 times 680 > >then I don't see anything wrong in adjusting to 50% * 620 + 30% * 650 + >20% * 680 >for NOs and to -680 for Os. First of all, why are you not applying the weighted score to both sides? Now, how do you know that the play was similar at the other tables? Perhaps the 680's all had a 2D overcall, which leads to a fatal diamond lead. I do not think it is acceptable to use score-sheets to give assigned scores. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 12:37:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P2aG812910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:36:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f4P2a2t12897 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:36:03 +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 1537Rd-0003jI-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 03:35:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:19:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More PPs on TDs References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >I was non-playing TD for my local club's session of >an Australia-wide simultaneous pairs last night. > >Since this small club did not own a dealing machine, >I had previously duplicated the boards by hand. But >when I did so, I had infracted L13 on one of the boards >- stealing East's ace of spades and giving it to South >as a fourteenth card. > >When this board first came into play last night, >Murphy's footnote to L13 saw East counting her 12 >cards, but South not bothering to count his 14 and >glancing at his hand before I was summoned. > >Question 1: Should I have ordered a redeal under >L6D1? While it was the first time this deal was to be >played at my club, it was not the first time the deal >was played in the overall Australia-wide event. No. The CoC do not permit a redeal. What do you mean, what CoC? All simultaneous pairs, by their nature, have one or two implied rules. >Question 2: If alternatively I gave an artificial >score under L13B2, what percentage should I award >NS? South had violated L7B1, but that would have >been an inconsequential infraction if the irrational >TD had not fouled the board. N/S get Ave, E/W get Ave+. >At the table, I determined that South's glance at >his cards had been very brief. Therefore, I >transferred the ace of spades back to East hand, >showed South his correct hand, and asked him if he >could identify what the missing 14th card was. He >was unable to do so. As I knew South was a player >of unimpeachable integrity, I ruled that the >board could be played under L13A1. What would you have done if South was not a player of unimpeachable integrity? If I had been directing, and knowing he had only given a brief glance, I would have transferred the card and told them to play on. >Furthermore, it is possible that a PP should have >also have been given to the irrational national >organiser of the Australia-wide event. To assist with >the compilation of the simultaneous pairs booklet, the >organiser used the hand records (and travelling >scoresheets) of a walk-in pairs played at his club >some months previously. > >Question 3: Therefore, was the entire Australia-wide >simultaneous pairs event illegal under L6D2? Yes. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 13:03:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P31dt12949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 13:01:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4P31Zt12945 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 13:01:35 +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 NAA26866 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 13:06:16 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:52:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] More PPs on TDs To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 12:58:56 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 25/05/2001 12:56:39 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In reply to myself, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: [big snip] >>At the table, I determined that South's glance at >>his cards had been very brief. Therefore, I >>transferred the ace of spades back to East hand, >>showed South his correct hand, and asked him if he >>could identify what the missing 14th card was. He >>was unable to do so. As I knew South was a player >>of unimpeachable integrity, I ruled that the >>board could be played under L13A1. > >I think you *must* give the NO's the opportunity to take 60%. >I'd award 60/40 if they chose this route. L13A says that the TD *shall* require the board to be played normally. Given that my determination of the facts was that L13A1 was applicable, I see no scope for offering the NO's the opportunity of 60%. Note that L13B states, *a player has seen one or more cards of another player's hand*. Perhaps the 2007 edition of the Laws should revise the wording of L13B to *could have seen*, consistent with the wording used in L49 for determining whether a penalty card exists. >>Furthermore, it is possible that a PP should have >>also have been given to the irrational national >>organiser of the Australia-wide event. To assist with >>the compilation of the simultaneous pairs booklet, the >>organiser used the hand records (and travelling >>scoresheets) of a walk-in pairs played at his club >>some months previously. >> >>Question 3: Therefore, was the entire Australia-wide >>simultaneous pairs event illegal under L6D2? > >Probably, unless the advertising stated it was a set of boards played >previously - which I think would then be ok under 6E4. Maybe it's ok >under that Law anyway. L6D2 specifically states one thing, and L6E4 does *not* specifically state that it overrides L6D2. Some years ago, I played in a simultaneous pairs which added excitement by using hands from a decades-old World Championship. Unfortunately for the organisers, I had read the World Championship book, and recognised a deal. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 14:57:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P4usT14877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:56:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4P4ult14873 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:56:49 +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 1539dr-000MQ5-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 04:56:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 05:54:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010524105119.00796ae0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <003301c0e4bc$d0e49600$fb8978d5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003301c0e4bc$d0e49600$fb8978d5@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <003301c0e4bc$d0e49600$fb8978d5@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott"There may always be another reality, to >make fiction of the truth we think we've >arrived at." - Christopher Fry > + + + + >----- Original Message ----- >From: Grant Sterling >To: >Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 4:51 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing > > >.------------ \x/ -------------. >> {{{Interestingly, my dictionary gives several >> definitions of "equity" that make it clear that >> equity is to be understood as a natural justice >> that overrides the strict rule of law, so, by my >> dictionary, interpreting L70a as holding that >> "equity" simply means nothing more than >> "according to the strict procedures of law" >> would be contraindicated. But, again, that's >> not how I think laws should be understood. >> I even enforce L54 when offender's partner >> hasn't led face-down, and enforce L6b by >> having the player put each hand in a different >> pocket, so what do I know? :) }}} >> >+=+ This is a good moment to draw attention >to the fact that in the official matrix of the 1997 >Laws, as promulgated by the WBF, Law 12C3 >reads: > >"12C3: Unless Zonal Organizations specify >otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an >assigned adjusted score in order to do equity". > whilst "do equity" is clumsy English, its intent is clear. I rule on "do equity" not "achieve equity". No doubt this will cause the rabid BL's to have apoplexies, but I find the difference obvious, workable and self-evident. cheers john >In some printings the last five words have been >corrupted to read "in order to achieve equity". -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 15:00:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P50ES14893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 15:00:14 +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-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 f4P508t14889 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 15:00:09 +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 1539h6-0005m5-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 04:59:24 +0000 Message-ID: <57ge5TE2YeD7EwpS@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 05:57:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: <3.0.6.32.20010523134041.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00b501c0e3d2$1247b320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B0CB7DE.8030406@interia.pl> <$rEB6bAiTQD7EwpA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <$rEB6bAiTQD7EwpA@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 <$rEB6bAiTQD7EwpA@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes snip > tricks other declarers in 4H in fact took. If the score sheet >>looks like: >> >>50 tables >> >>25 times 620 >>15 times 650 >>10 times 680 >> >>then I don't see anything wrong in adjusting to 50% * 620 + 30% * 650 + >>20% * 680 >>for NOs and to -680 for Os. DWS: > > First of all, why are you not applying the weighted score to both >sides? > > Now, how do you know that the play was similar at the other tables? >Perhaps the 680's all had a 2D overcall, which leads to a fatal diamond >lead. > > I do not think it is acceptable to use score-sheets to give assigned >scores. > Concur. (Snarl). Reinstate Gloat.sig -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game ICQ 10810798 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 15:04:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P54H516168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 15:04:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4P54At16129 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 15:04:10 +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 1539l0-000N3p-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 05:03:26 +0000 Message-ID: <+7Qf5fE2ceD7Ewow@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 06:01:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double 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 , David Stevenson writes >Tim West-meads writes >>In-Reply-To: <200105231558.IAA31789@mailhub.irvine.com> > >>> Not really. As you mention later, "likely" is used elsewhere in the >>> Laws to mean something that we wouldn't necessarily use the term >>> "likely" for in English. Since it's important not to penalize >>> non-offenders for their opponents' irregularities (and since, as David >>> pointed out, it's important to prevent abuse), I think it's necessary >>> to read "likely" in as broad a way as possible. > >>Perhaps. Had it been IMPs then the appeal of "a solid plus" might >>outweigh the fact that it's not usually the optimum contract. I don't >>think this applies at MPs. As for preventing abuse I consider resorting to >>72B as pathetic*. If the TD thinks it was deliberate cheating he should >>damn well rule that way and kick the player out. 72B is sufficient to >>protect players against damage from *accidental* illegalities and should >>be used in that context. > > It is rare that a TD can prove a player is cheating, and, in fact, the >job of proving cheating is normally one to be left to the National >authorities. > > However, there are many situations where a player might be cheating, >but a TD does not know. The player takes an action which is similar to >one a cheat might take, but it is not clear whether it was ignorance, >stupidity or malice. You cannot treat such a situation as cheating, and >it is not pathetic not to consider such a situation as cheating. It is >sensible. > > But you do not want someone to gain, and L72B1 has been written in >such a way as to stop people gaining. You treat apparent abuses the >same way whether they are cheating or not so the player does not gain. >L72B1 is a great addition to the Law book because it deals with >deliberate but unprovable irregularities: *that* is its main advantage. > I reinforce 100% what David says: 72B1 means that you may well be a cheat, you may not be a cheat, we don't care - the ruling is made as if you were a cheat, *but* we don't suggest you *are*. If we think you *are* a cheat then we do something entirely different. [3 - 10 years, no option] 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 Fri May 25 16:39:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P6ci629727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 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 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 f4P6cct29723 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 16:38:39 +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 f4P6cwa09152 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 23:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a401c0e4e4$cce351e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010523134041.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00b501c0e3d2$1247b320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B0CB7DE.8030406@interia.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 23:33:27 -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 I'll let David Stevenson reply to this one. I once suggested that ACs should have the recap sheets available for reasons such as you give, and he convinced me that this was very wrong. I remember a TD telling me years ago that I wasn't injured when opponents bid 4S via UI, because almost everyone bid 4S on the hand. Irrelevant! Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > From: "alain gottcheiner" > > > >> Why not look at the results at other tables, then enquire > >> as to whether they were attained after a 2H opening, then take the most > >> favourable to NS ? > >> > > Looking at the results at other tables is never correct. They are > > completely irrelevant. > > There are irrelevant in a sense that you cannot rule along the lines > "you guys > got 95% anyway, so score stands". But looking at the scores at the other > tables might be helpful if you try to work what an AssAS might be. Suppose > NS failed to bid 4H because they were misinformed. You adjust to 4H > and now you have to work out how many tricks are available in this contract. > There are lines that lead to 10, 11 or 12 tricks. I think it *is* correct to > check how many tricks other declarers in 4H in fact took. If the score sheet > looks like: > > 50 tables > > 25 times 620 > 15 times 650 > 10 times 680 > > then I don't see anything wrong in adjusting to 50% * 620 + 30% * 650 + > 20% * 680 > for NOs and to -680 for Os. > > Yes I know I am oversimplifying; if, for example, I have a reason to > believe that this particular > declarer would have taken more tricks than an average declarer in the > room then > I might modify the %s accordingly. Still I see nothing wrong in > consulting the > scores at the other tables *only* for the purpose of trying to work out > how the > bidding/play might go had the infraction not occured. > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 17:37:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P7aLo29765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 17:36:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4P7aEt29761 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 17:36:15 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 2CB372A451B; Fri, 25 May 2001 09:35:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id A9EC42A4414 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 09:35:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 26421 invoked from network); 25 May 2001 07:35:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 25 May 2001 07:35:28 -0000 Message-ID: <3B0E0AD4.4020107@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:33:40 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: <3.0.6.32.20010523134041.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00b501c0e3d2$1247b320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B0CB7DE.8030406@interia.pl> <$rEB6bAiTQD7EwpA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 171daacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski writes > >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>> From: "alain gottcheiner" >>> >>>> Why not look at the results at other tables, then enquire >>>> as to whether they were attained after a 2H opening, then take the most >>>> favourable to NS ? >>>> >>> Looking at the results at other tables is never correct. They are >>> completely irrelevant. >> >> There are irrelevant in a sense that you cannot rule along the lines >> "you guys >> got 95% anyway, so score stands". But looking at the scores at the other >> tables might be helpful if you try to work what an AssAS might be. Suppose >> NS failed to bid 4H because they were misinformed. You adjust to 4H >> and now you have to work out how many tricks are available in this contract. >> There are lines that lead to 10, 11 or 12 tricks. I think it *is* correct to >> check how many tricks other declarers in 4H in fact took. If the score sheet >> looks like: >> >> 50 tables >> >> 25 times 620 >> 15 times 650 >> 10 times 680 >> >> then I don't see anything wrong in adjusting to 50% * 620 + 30% * 650 + >> 20% * 680 >> for NOs and to -680 for Os. > > > First of all, why are you not applying the weighted score to both > sides? I belong to the third school (see "Nomenclature" thread"). > > Now, how do you know that the play was similar at the other tables? > Perhaps the 680's all had a 2D overcall, which leads to a fatal diamond > lead. > > I do not think it is acceptable to use score-sheets to give assigned > scores. > Suppose NS bid to 1NT instead 4H because they were misinformed. You adjust to 4H 10 tricks because your analisys of the deal leads to a conclusion that there are 10 tricks in 4H available and no more. You consult the scoresheet and find out that *everybody* in 4H took eleven tricks. Wouldn't that make you think that you have overlooked something in the card play? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ----------------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A---------------------- Superoferta na Dzien Dziecka. Pokemon PIKACHU za 56,80 zl http://hiperia.interia.pl/show_product.dhtml?f_product_id=29373 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 17:58:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P7w5606404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 17:58:05 +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 f4P7vwt06357 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 17:57:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-48-141.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.48.141]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4P7v5L15026; Fri, 25 May 2001 08:57:05 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <007401c0e4f0$54abc0c0$8d307bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Grattan Endicott" References: <3.0.6.32.20010523134920.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001d01c0e39b$1c746500$2144063e@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wording, was Double out of turn Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 08:55:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "Our experience is composed rather of > illusions lost than of wisdom acquired." > [Joseph Roux] > + = + - + - + - + - + - + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: alain gottcheiner > To: ; > Cc: > Sent: 23 May 2001 12:49 > Subject: [BLML] Wording, was Double out of turn > > > > At 09:04 23/05/01 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > > >Aren't you confusing *likely* with *possible*? Surely if > > >offender can see that on 90% of the probable layouts > > >barring partner would lead to an inferior contract it is > > >not likely that the pass will damage NOS. > > >Now this case is closer. Gut feel tells me that the > >< figure is around 60-65%. Again not enough to expect > > >damage to be likely. I know I am reading likely here to > > > be something like "more probable than not" and that > > >elsewhere in the laws it is used differently. I also know > > >that using the same word differently happens > > >elsewhere too. > > > > > >Another candidate for Grattan's list of clarifications? > > > > AG : sure ! Especially as the French version uses the > > wording 'le passe obligé pourrait désavantager le > > camp non fautif', which translates into 'the enforced > > pass could disadvantage the NOS'. > > > > Comments appreciated. rrr +=+ I have not been following this subject, but I imagine we are with Law 23. The French version is not 'the Law'. The WBF English text of the laws is 'the Law' and defines the game. So if there is a mistranslation it is the French text that requires refinement. The same applies to any other faulty derivative text - as for example 'achieve' in 12C3. Yet sometimes the problem is not to understand the official law but to find the words to express its meaning in translation. However, let us never believe that 'the Law' never requires clarification :-). If we compare the wording of Law 12C2 ['the most favourable result that was likely' - 'the most unfavourable result that was at all probable'] with the wording of Law 23 ['could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to'] we begin to see a dimly emergent scale of relativities. However, the judgements to be made are subjective and the relativities turn on the placement of the pivotal mid-point - i.e. 50 in a scale of 1 to 99. I would say that the two phrases in 12C2 present two points more distant from centre, the phrase in L23 one that is nearer to the centre, which is not to say 'at the centre'. In my perception I place my pivotal point lower down the scale of probability than some who have commented. In my vocabulary something 'likely' to happen does not have to be something that will probably happen; it can be less than 50% probability. I would perhaps put the lower end of its probability somewhere around 35% plus. ~ 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 May 25 18:57:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P8uB610186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 18:56:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4P8u0t10178 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 18:56:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4P8tEW06551 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 09:55:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:55 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn 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: > >Perhaps. Had it been IMPs then the appeal of "a solid plus" might > >outweigh the fact that it's not usually the optimum contract. I don't > >think this applies at MPs. As for preventing abuse I consider > resorting to >72B as pathetic*. If the TD thinks it was deliberate > cheating he should >damn well rule that way and kick the player out. > 72B is sufficient to >protect players against damage from *accidental* > illegalities and should >be used in that context. > > It is rare that a TD can prove a player is cheating, and, in fact, the > job of proving cheating is normally one to be left to the National > authorities. > > However, there are many situations where a player might be cheating, > but a TD does not know. The player takes an action which is similar to > one a cheat might take, but it is not clear whether it was ignorance, > stupidity or malice. You cannot treat such a situation as cheating, and > it is not pathetic not to consider such a situation as cheating. It is > sensible. I would expect law 72b to be used in all cases with the same adjustment- yes. If the director diagnoses ignorance I would also expect him to give a kindly explanation of the crime. However if the director suspects cheating this is not enough. I would expect further action - whether this is to kick the player out, report the case to the National authorities, or file a recorder form I leave to the TD (I would guess his choice would be influenced by the degree of suspicion). In other words I think an adverse 72b ruling does little, on its own, to discourage deliberate abuse. I believe that a cheat would not deliberately bar partner in a less than 50/50 situation so I don't think that "interpreting the likely broadly" is necessary or desirable for the law to fulfil its purpose. 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 May 25 18:57:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4P8uAQ10185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 18:56:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4P8u0t10177 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 18:56:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4P8tGG06561 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 09:55:16 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:55 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn 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: <+7Qf5fE2ceD7Ewow@asimere.com> JProbst wrote: > I reinforce 100% what David says: 72B1 means that you may well be a > cheat, you may not be a cheat, we don't care - the ruling is made as if > you were a cheat, *but* we don't suggest you *are*. I'd rather "The ruling is made because opponents were damaged." Avoiding any reference to the c-word at all. > If we think you *are* a cheat then we do something entirely different. Exactly - (well, almost - really we do something additional) 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 May 25 20:03:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PA2VU01315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 20:02:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PA2Gt01249 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 20:02:17 +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 153EPQ-0005gw-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 10:01:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 04:00:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@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 >When the questioned player replies with, "Yes, of course I would," we >discount the reply as self-serving, because we recognize that the >"true" answer is probably something along the lines of mine. As has been said many times, a majority of people on this list, including myself, do not agree with automatically discounting self- serving answers. So questions are useful because most of us do use the answers. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 20:03:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PA2V901318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 20:02:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PA2Gt01242 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 20:02:16 +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 153EPQ-0006Cc-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 10:01:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 04:04:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature References: <3B0CCC66.BC6595DE@village.uunet.be> <200105241628.JAA23587@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200105241628.JAA23587@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 >Ah, so your three proposed names boil down to Truth, Justice, and The >American Way. OK, I get it. :) Brilliant!!! Problem solved. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 20:03:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PA2TB01308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 20:02:30 +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-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 f4PA2Gt01243 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 20:02:16 +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 153EPQ-0006Cd-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 10:01:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 04:06:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More PPs on TDs References: <3kMt+8CH9QD7EwoK@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: <3kMt+8CH9QD7EwoK@asimere.com> 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 , >richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >>At the table, I determined that South's glance at >>his cards had been very brief. Therefore, I >>transferred the ace of spades back to East hand, >>showed South his correct hand, and asked him if he >>could identify what the missing 14th card was. He >>was unable to do so. As I knew South was a player >>of unimpeachable integrity, I ruled that the >>board could be played under L13A1. > >I think you *must* give the NO's the opportunity to take 60%. >I'd award 60/40 if they chose this route. What? Why? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 25 22:12:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PCCMS26585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 22:12:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PCCDt26581 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 22:12:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4PCBNK86977 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 08:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010525075608.00af9ad0@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, 25 May 2001 08:11:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@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 11:00 PM 5/24/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >When the questioned player replies with, "Yes, of course I would," we > >discount the reply as self-serving, because we recognize that the > >"true" answer is probably something along the lines of mine. > > As has been said many times, a majority of people on this list, >including myself, do not agree with automatically discounting self- >serving answers. So questions are useful because most of us do use the >answers. David appears to have misunderstood me. I fully agree that it is wrong in general to automatically discount "self-serving" answers; questions can indeed be useful when we use the information we get from the answers. But not this particular question, to which the answer, whether self-serving or the opposite, provides no useful information. What it does do is place an unnecessary burden on the player asked, who must expend time and energy to do the requested analysis. Since, in this case, we shouldn't be tempted to try to make use of the answer, we shouldn't ask the question. 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 May 25 23:24:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PDNQZ13539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 23:23:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe66.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.201]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4PDNKt13502 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 23:23:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 25 May 2001 06:22:32 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.166.17] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 06:54:03 -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: 25 May 2001 13:22:32.0282 (UTC) FILETIME=[C118E3A0:01C0E51D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have a friend or two who are above the norm in intelligence. When they believe their cards are winners they insist [against my prodding] upon methodically playing the 8 to the point of not playing the Q. And I witnessed at least one occasion where the 8 did not win. Is this the data that is being sought? regards roger pewick ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 9:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing | Ton Kooijman wrote: | Tony Musgrove had written: | >> North | >> -- | >> -- | >> Q 10 9 8 | >> -- East | >> x | >> xx | >> J | >> x | >> | >> Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer | >> states the rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about >> | the outstanding J. | > | >What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this | >situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before | >we have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to | >know your decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion | >about the play of the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play | >continues. (my assumption is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' | >means she thought all her trumps to be good). | | You want 100 answers? I guess that lurkers (which includes me, in | recent times) had better reply. I think it's very close, and that about | 95% of players would lead DQ. This is quite not enough IMO to allow | declarer to make all the tricks, so I'd award a trick to the defence. | | Ton, if you'd like me to poll about 50 non-BLML Aussies by email, | let me know. | | Peter Gill | Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 26 01:49:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PFmms01955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 01:48:48 +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 f4PFmft01917 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 01:48:42 +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 IAA14589; Fri, 25 May 2001 08:47:56 -0700 Message-Id: <200105251547.IAA14589@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 May 2001 14:13:23 BST." Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 08:47:56 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk OK, now that we've had a lot of discussion about what "likely" means and what the purpose of "could have known" is, etc., I'd like to know: Is there any reason why the "could have known" condition should be important in a case like this? In my opinion, if (1) an enforced pass allows partner to make a call that would normally be forcing, passed infrequently, and/or conventional; and (2) the result is a final contract that the side did not have a good chance of getting to absent the infraction; and (3) the non-offenders are damaged as a result; the score should be adjusted, period. In a case like this, there should be no reason to determine who could have known what or could have been thinking what or what the offender's estimation of the likelihood of damage should have been if he were thinking about it or anything like that. It might not be necessary to change the Laws to do this. Perhaps we (i.e. the WBFLC) could simply promulgate an interpretation that says that if conditions (1) and (2) are met, then this is enough to satisfy "could have known that damage was likely" condition in L23. However, if this is too much of a stretch, I'd support a Law change to require an adjustment in this case. So what does everyone else think? -- 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 May 26 02:05:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PG5AX07841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 02:05:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PG53t07806 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 02:05:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-64-178.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.64.178]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4PG47L11779; Fri, 25 May 2001 17:04:07 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002901c0e534$4722d8a0$b240063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <3B0CCC66.BC6595DE@village.uunet.be><200105241628.JAA23587@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:02:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 25 May 2001 04:04 Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature > Adam Beneschan writes > > >Ah, so your three proposed names boil down to Truth, Justice, and The > >American Way. OK, I get it. :) > > Brilliant!!! Problem solved. > +=+ Hmmm.... I would like to remove the racist innuendo .... Third Way, maybe, or perhaps the Tea-party Plan? ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 26 02:58:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PGwCC26718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 02:58:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PGw1t26651 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 02:58:02 +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 f4PGv5S97458 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010525124310.00af9e10@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, 25 May 2001 12:57:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-Reply-To: <200105251547.IAA14589@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:47 AM 5/25/01, Adam wrote: >OK, now that we've had a lot of discussion about what "likely" means >and what the purpose of "could have known" is, etc., I'd like to know: >Is there any reason why the "could have known" condition should be >important in a case like this? Yes. L23 and L72B1 exist to allow score adjustments in circumstances which might be the result of deliberate cheating without having to address the issue of whether or not such cheating was actually going on. The "could have known" tells us not to adjust in circumstances in which the infraction could not possibly have been deliberate, because it would be obvious to a cheater that it would rate to lose rather than gain. In keeping with the spirit and intent of the laws, if you do something that might have been a deliberate cheat (had it been done by someone else, of course!), we do not presume that you were cheating, but rectify the damage nevertheless. If you do something that could not have been a deliberate cheat, there's no reason to do so. >In my opinion, if > >(1) an enforced pass allows partner to make a call that would normally > be forcing, passed infrequently, and/or conventional; and >(2) the result is a final contract that the side did not have a good > chance of getting to absent the infraction; and >(3) the non-offenders are damaged as a result; > >the score should be adjusted, period. In a case like this, there >should be no reason to determine who could have known what or could >have been thinking what or what the offender's estimation of the >likelihood of damage should have been if he were thinking about it or >anything like that. > >It might not be necessary to change the Laws to do this. Perhaps we >(i.e. the WBFLC) could simply promulgate an interpretation that says >that if conditions (1) and (2) are met, then this is enough to satisfy >"could have known that damage was likely" condition in L23. However, >if this is too much of a stretch, I'd support a Law change to require >an adjustment in this case. > >So what does everyone else think? I don't like it. A player commits an infraction that could not have been deliberate (stipulated) and thus places himself at a considerable disadvantage. Currently we at least give him a chance to make a lucky blind guess and recover a good score if he, however unlikely, guesses right. Adam's suggested rule change would eliminate any possibility of a successful recovery, and I see no reason why we would want to do that. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 26 02:58:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PGwX326833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 02:58:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PGwQt26795 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 02:58:26 +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 153KuC-000Ezm-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 16:57:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:56:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing 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 , Roger Pewick writes >I have a friend or two who are above the norm in intelligence. When >they believe their cards are winners they insist [against my prodding] >upon methodically playing the 8 to the point of not playing the Q. >And I witnessed at least one occasion where the 8 did not win. > >Is this the data that is being sought? > With my interest in getting Gordon to buy me drinks, I have on at least one occasion had to buy him one when the D7 turned out not to be a trick 13 winner, but the card I pitched on it was. Players have their own agendas, and one can guarantee nothing in respect of in which order cards will be played. I'm pretty cynical about this particular situation and routinely award tricks to the opponents. I need very strong evidence not to do so. >regards >roger pewick > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Peter Gill >To: BLML >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 9:45 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing > > >| Ton Kooijman wrote: >| Tony Musgrove had written: >| >> North >| >> -- >| >> -- >| >> Q 10 9 8 >| >> -- East >| >> x >| >> xx >| >> J >| >> x >| >> >| >> Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer >| >> states the rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about >>> >| the outstanding J. >| > >| >What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this >| >situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop >before >| >we have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to >| >know your decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion >| >about the play of the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play >| >continues. (my assumption is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' >| >means she thought all her trumps to be good). >| >| You want 100 answers? I guess that lurkers (which includes me, in >| recent times) had better reply. I think it's very close, and that >about >| 95% of players would lead DQ. This is quite not enough IMO to allow >| declarer to make all the tricks, so I'd award a trick to the >defence. >| >| Ton, if you'd like me to poll about 50 non-BLML Aussies by email, >| let me know. >| >| 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/ -- 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 May 26 03:01:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PH0uN27657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 03:00:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PH0nt27616 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 03:00:49 +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 f4PH18a12256; Fri, 25 May 2001 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002401c0e53c$183e2be0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200105251547.IAA14589@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:54:12 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > In my opinion, if > > (1) an enforced pass allows partner to make a call that would normally > be forcing, passed infrequently, and/or conventional; and > (2) the result is a final contract that the side did not have a good > chance of getting to absent the infraction; and > (3) the non-offenders are damaged as a result; > > the score should be adjusted, period. In a case like this, there > should be no reason to determine who could have known what or could > have been thinking what or what the offender's estimation of the > likelihood of damage should have been if he were thinking about it or > anything like that. > > It might not be necessary to change the Laws to do this. Perhaps we > (i.e. the WBFLC) could simply promulgate an interpretation that says > that if conditions (1) and (2) are met, then this is enough to satisfy > "could have known that damage was likely" condition in L23. However, > if this is too much of a stretch, I'd support a Law change to require > an adjustment in this case. > > So what does everyone else think? > Fully agreed. No change in the Laws should be necessary, just an an official interpretation by the WBFLC. 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 May 26 03:11:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PHBgb01400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 03:11:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PHBZt01373 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 03:11:36 +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 f4PHBta14268 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 10:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002501c0e53d$9991aa40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010525075608.00af9ad0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 10:10:25 -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 11:00 PM 5/24/01, David wrote: > > >Eric Landau writes > > > > >When the questioned player replies with, "Yes, of course I would," we > > >discount the reply as self-serving, because we recognize that the > > >"true" answer is probably something along the lines of mine. > > > > As has been said many times, a majority of people on this list, > >including myself, do not agree with automatically discounting self- > >serving answers. So questions are useful because most of us do use the > >answers. > > David appears to have misunderstood me. I fully agree that it is wrong > in general to automatically discount "self-serving" answers; questions > can indeed be useful when we use the information we get from the > answers. I don't see how uncorroborated, possibly self-serving, testimony can be given any weight at all. We don't say the person is lying, we just say such statements are inadmissible if not confirmed by other evidence. > But not this particular question, to which the answer, > whether self-serving or the opposite, provides no useful > information. What it does do is place an unnecessary burden on the > player asked, who must expend time and energy to do the requested > analysis. Since, in this case, we shouldn't be tempted to try to make > use of the answer, we shouldn't ask the question. > Exactly. I find it odd that while David is of the opinion that taking a player away from the table to ask what s/he would have done absent MI, when too late to change a call, is not right, he opines that it's okay to ask a player if s/he would have executed a line of play that hir partner has found to invalidate a claim. In either case, and for the same reasons, we shouldn't ask the question. 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 May 26 03:21:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PHLJw04725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 03:21:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PHLCt04672 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 03:21:12 +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 153LGE-000Hr4-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 18:20:26 +0100 Message-ID: <+tb$MtAYQpD7EwZd@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 18:19:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] More PPs on TDs References: <3kMt+8CH9QD7EwoK@asimere.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 >John (MadDog) Probst writes >>In article , >>richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >>>At the table, I determined that South's glance at >>>his cards had been very brief. Therefore, I >>>transferred the ace of spades back to East hand, >>>showed South his correct hand, and asked him if he >>>could identify what the missing 14th card was. He >>>was unable to do so. As I knew South was a player >>>of unimpeachable integrity, I ruled that the >>>board could be played under L13A1. >> >>I think you *must* give the NO's the opportunity to take 60%. >>I'd award 60/40 if they chose this route. > > What? Why? > Law 13B1 seems to be quite clear on this. "... with the concurrence of all four players...". While the player may well claim he didn't see the card (and believe his own statement), I would strongly baulk at enforcing play on the NO's who may well have perceived that the player *did* see the card. I generally say something like "We're here to play bridge and the gentleman assures us he didn't see the card, but in case of doubt I feel obliged to offer you the choice of taking 60/40 on the board." Dammitall, he didn't count his cards and he did cause the problem and he certainly could have seen the card. If nothing else I guess I can fall back on L12A1. It's different when NS have a transposed deuce and trey and "have" seen them. [Remember we have curtain cards in the UK, so checking one's hand before play is normal here]. Now I will generally rule that the information gained is inconsequential but the players still get a shot at 60/60. -- 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 May 26 03:56:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PHuBW13171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 03:56:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PHu1t13167 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 03:56:02 +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 f4PHtAX28591 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 13:55:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010525133718.00af9cc0@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, 25 May 2001 13:55:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-Reply-To: <002401c0e53c$183e2be0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200105251547.IAA14589@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 12:54 PM 5/25/01, Marvin wrote: >Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > In my opinion, if > > > > (1) an enforced pass allows partner to make a call that would normally > > be forcing, passed infrequently, and/or conventional; and > > (2) the result is a final contract that the side did not have a good > > chance of getting to absent the infraction; and > > (3) the non-offenders are damaged as a result; > > > > the score should be adjusted, period. In a case like this, there > > should be no reason to determine who could have known what or could > > have been thinking what or what the offender's estimation of the > > likelihood of damage should have been if he were thinking about it or > > anything like that. > > > > It might not be necessary to change the Laws to do this. Perhaps we > > (i.e. the WBFLC) could simply promulgate an interpretation that says > > that if conditions (1) and (2) are met, then this is enough to satisfy > > "could have known that damage was likely" condition in L23. However, > > if this is too much of a stretch, I'd support a Law change to require > > an adjustment in this case. > > > > So what does everyone else think? > > >Fully agreed. No change in the Laws should be necessary, just an an >official interpretation by the WBFLC. I don't want to get into the debate on the meaning of "likely", but whatever it means, I submit that interpreting "could have known that damage was likely" to cover cases in which damage was demonstrably *not* likely is stretching the English language a bit too far, even for the WBFLC. If we want to change the meaning of a law, we are far better off, as numerous BLML threads have demonstrated, to change the law to reflect the changed meaning rather than to promulgate some "interpretation" by which the law now means something other than what it says. Many here have suggested that the body of WBFLC interpretations is already an esoteric grimoire of arcane lore known only to the initiate few despite the WBF's best efforts to promulgate it as widely as possible. 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 May 26 04:05:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PI5Kd13188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 04:05:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f4PI5Ct13184 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 04:05:13 +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 f4PI41E34456 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:04:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010525135826.00afa760@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, 25 May 2001 14:04:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing 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 07:54 AM 5/25/01, Roger wrote: >I have a friend or two who are above the norm in intelligence. When >they believe their cards are winners they insist [against my prodding] >upon methodically playing the 8 to the point of not playing the Q. >And I witnessed at least one occasion where the 8 did not win. As Ted Kaczynski rather convincingly demonstrated, intelligence has very little to do with rationality. 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 May 26 04:07:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PI7cp13201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 04:07:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PI7Vt13197 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 04:07:32 +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 NAA00734 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 13:07:00 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010525130428.007ae8e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 13:04:28 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature In-Reply-To: References: <200105241628.JAA23587@mailhub.irvine.com> <3B0CCC66.BC6595DE@village.uunet.be> <200105241628.JAA23587@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 04:04 AM 5/25/2001 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Adam Beneschan writes > >>Ah, so your three proposed names boil down to Truth, Justice, and The >>American Way. OK, I get it. :) > > Brilliant!!! Problem solved. Notice, though, that Truth, Justice, and the American Way are, in this case, mutually exclusive. :) Respectfully, Grant Sterling > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 26 04:11:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PIAr513213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 04:10:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4PIAlt13209 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 04:10:48 +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 OAA12186 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA23687 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:10:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200105251810.OAA23687@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > Is there any reason why the "could have known" condition should be > important in a case like this? If you delete the "could have known," you make the penalty for inadvertent infractions much more severe. Also, you make it harder for TD's to explain the penalty. Let's suppose you pick up a pretty good hand and open 1S. Unfortunately, RHO was the dealer and hasn't acted yet. LHO doesn't accept your BOOT, and RHO opens 4H. OK, partner is going to be barred for at least one round. What are you going to do? Currently, you have options (among others) of double and 4NT, both to play. These may not be normal contracts, but whatever the result, you will keep your score. It is wildly unlikely that you could have anticipated the 4H bid, so L23/72B1 will not apply. (OK, maybe somebody can construct a special hand where you could have known, but such hands will be rare.) Under Adam's proposal, both double and 4NT would be ruled out. That is, they would be legal calls, but if you get a good score from either one, the TD would take it away because if partner had not been barred, he would not have passed in either contract. (Again we ignore rare, special hands.) I don't see any reason to make the penalty so harsh. The infraction has prevented seeking partner's cooperation in finding a contract. I don't see why it should also rule out some of the possible contracts you might want to guess. Further, and more important, I dislike the mixing of fixed penalties and score adjustments. We need a little of this mixing in L23/72B1 regardless, but there's no reason to make it worse than it already is. Put me down with Eric: the present meaning of "could have known" is just fine. I would like to think it would take a Laws change, not just an interpretation, to change the meaning, but that isn't consistent with precedent. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 26 04:39:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PIddK18221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 04:39:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PIdVt18217 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 04:39:32 +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 f4PIcgV20141 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010525141316.00b03500@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, 25 May 2001 14:38:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <002501c0e53d$9991aa40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010525075608.00af9ad0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:10 PM 5/25/01, Marvin wrote: >I don't see how uncorroborated, possibly self-serving, testimony can be >given any weight at all. We don't say the person is lying, we >just say such statements are inadmissible if not confirmed by other >evidence. When we are called upon to determine what actually happened at the table it behooves us to take into account whatever evidence is available. Sometimes the only evidence we have is someone's testimony, which cannot be corroborated, and sometimes that testimony turns out to be "self-serving". But even the most blatantly self-serving statements of purported fact may be entirely true, just as paranoids may be genuinely persecuted. When the testimony is self-serving, we must filter it through an assessment of the testifier's credibility, as in any other juridical proceeding, but that doesn't necessarily mean ignoring it altogether in every case. >Exactly. I find it odd that while David is of the opinion that taking a >player away from the table to ask what s/he would have done absent MI, >when too late to change a call, is not right, he opines that it's okay to >ask a player if s/he would have executed a line of play that hir partner >has found to invalidate a claim. > >In either case, and for the same reasons, we shouldn't ask the question. With this I agree. Testimony as to what someone might have done in some hypothetical situation (e.g. if they hadn't had MI, or if they had played out a deal on which they in fact claimed) is a very different thing from testimony as to what actually happened, and should not be sought or used to make judgments. The vast majority of bridge players are essentially honest; if asked what they *did* they will do their best to answer truthfully. But the vast majority of bridge players are neither modest nor self-effacing; if asked what they *would have done if...* they will naturally give themselves the benefit of any doubt. As TDs (or AC members) we should distinguish these situations, and act 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 May 26 04:58:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PIwKn18240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 04:58:20 +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 f4PIwEt18236 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 04:58:14 +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 NAA12888 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 13:57:48 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010525135515.007b8bb0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 13:55:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010525141316.00b03500@127.0.0.1> References: <002501c0e53d$9991aa40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010525075608.00af9ad0@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 02:38 PM 5/25/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:10 PM 5/25/01, Marvin wrote: > >>I don't see how uncorroborated, possibly self-serving, testimony can be >>given any weight at all. We don't say the person is lying, we >>just say such statements are inadmissible if not confirmed by other >>evidence. > >When we are called upon to determine what actually happened at the >table it behooves us to take into account whatever evidence is >available. Sometimes the only evidence we have is someone's testimony, >which cannot be corroborated, and sometimes that testimony turns out to >be "self-serving". But even the most blatantly self-serving statements >of purported fact may be entirely true, just as paranoids may be >genuinely persecuted. When the testimony is self-serving, we must >filter it through an assessment of the testifier's credibility, as in >any other juridical proceeding, but that doesn't necessarily mean >ignoring it altogether in every case. > >>Exactly. I find it odd that while David is of the opinion that taking a >>player away from the table to ask what s/he would have done absent MI, >>when too late to change a call, is not right, he opines that it's okay to >>ask a player if s/he would have executed a line of play that hir partner >>has found to invalidate a claim. >> >>In either case, and for the same reasons, we shouldn't ask the question. > >With this I agree. Testimony as to what someone might have done in >some hypothetical situation (e.g. if they hadn't had MI, or if they had >played out a deal on which they in fact claimed) is a very different >thing from testimony as to what actually happened, and should not be >sought or used to make judgments. > >The vast majority of bridge players are essentially honest; if asked >what they *did* they will do their best to answer truthfully. But the >vast majority of bridge players are neither modest nor self-effacing; >if asked what they *would have done if...* they will naturally give >themselves the benefit of any doubt. As TDs (or AC members) we should >distinguish these situations, and act accordingly. I disagree. As you have already said, we take the evidence we have been given and filter it according to the situation. So why not take the information we get in these cases and filter it? Why shouldn't your principle apply to these cases as well? You say that the vast majority of players will give themselves the benefit of the doubt--OK, we can take that into account. (Unlike DWS, I would even want to ask the player in the MI case what he thinks he would have done absent the MI, while not being bound to assume that his answer must be what he really would have done. It's evidence. I take it, and weigh it.) >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 Sat May 26 09:48:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4PNlb423154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 09:47:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4PNlUt23150 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 09:47:30 +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 QAA21884; Fri, 25 May 2001 16:46:43 -0700 Message-Id: <200105252346.QAA21884@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 May 2001 14:10:00 EDT." <200105251810.OAA23687@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:46:42 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > Is there any reason why the "could have known" condition should be > > important in a case like this? > > If you delete the "could have known," you make the penalty for > inadvertent infractions much more severe. Also, you make it harder for > TD's to explain the penalty. > > Let's suppose you pick up a pretty good hand and open 1S. > Unfortunately, RHO was the dealer and hasn't acted yet. LHO doesn't > accept your BOOT, and RHO opens 4H. OK, partner is going to be barred > for at least one round. What are you going to do? > > Currently, you have options (among others) of double and 4NT, both to > play. These may not be normal contracts, but whatever the result, you > will keep your score. It is wildly unlikely that you could have > anticipated the 4H bid, so L23/72B1 will not apply. (OK, maybe > somebody can construct a special hand where you could have known, but > such hands will be rare.) > > Under Adam's proposal, both double and 4NT would be ruled out. Actually, I'm not convinced that a double would be ruled out, since takeout doubles at high levels are frequently passed. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that everyone in the room plays double of 4H as takeout and treats Kaplan's dictum "Takeout doubles are meant to be taken out" as if it were something handed down on a stone tablet from Mt. Sinai. > That > is, they would be legal calls, but if you get a good score from either > one, the TD would take it away because if partner had not been barred, > he would not have passed in either contract. (Again we ignore rare, > special hands.) > > I don't see any reason to make the penalty so harsh. First of all, it's not a penalty. I'm not suggesting that in this case we transfer two tricks to the non-offending side, or to apply the Burn Death Penalty where we automatically score -1100 against the offenders. I'm suggesting an adjusted score, which basically means we determine the score that would have actually happened if there had been no infraction. OK, so if there's more than one "at all probable" score we assign the least favorable one. (But this may not be a penalty, since someone who doesn't know whose turn it is to bid is probably not going to know how to bid or play the hand correctly anyway.) I think you may be assuming that, because double and 4NT would be "ruled out", that the "penalty" is that the offender must guess whether to pass or bid something unilaterally, something that's likely to lead to a very bad score. But that's not the case. It seems like the best thing to do, in many cases, would be to double or bid 4NT anyway, and expect an adjustment if it works out too well. Please note that nowhere in my proposal did I suggest making double or 4NT an infraction or an irregularity; therefore, not only is it perfectly ethical to make that call, it also means that when computing the score(s) that would have happened "had the irregularity not occurred" (L12C2), the only irregularity to consider is the BOOT, which means that we imagine what might have happened without the BOOT; and those imagined scenarios *would* allow for cooperative bidding. So under my proposal, the result we give the offenders is one they might have gotten at the table anyway. Without something like this, though, there's a chance that we give the non-offenders a poor result they could *not* have gotten normally. Suppose 4Hx is the best possible spot for this pair; under the theological assumptions noted above, there was no way for the pair to get there, EXCEPT by committing an infraction. Now, I have nothing against getting bad results by dumb luck (opponents make stupid bids or plays and they work out), but I do have something against being forced to take a bad result that the opponents could have given me only by committing an infraction. I don't understand why it would be "too harsh" to give the offenders a somewhat unfavorable result they might have gotten themselves, but just peachy to give the non-offenders a horrible result that is worse than any result they could have possible gotten under normal circumstances. That doesn't make sense to me. > The infraction > has prevented seeking partner's cooperation in finding a contract. I > don't see why it should also rule out some of the possible contracts > you might want to guess. > > Further, and more important, I dislike the mixing of fixed penalties > and score adjustments. We need a little of this mixing in L23/72B1 > regardless, but there's no reason to make it worse than it already is. > > Put me down with Eric: the present meaning of "could have known" is > just fine. Assuming we know what the present meaning is. Given the discussion that has followed David's original post, that's a pretty heroic assumption. -- 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 May 26 11:19:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4Q1IhV00181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 11:18:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4Q1Iat00176 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 11:18:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-016.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.208]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA31087 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 02:17:44 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 26 May 2001 02:18:20 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0E58A.2231A3E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 02:18:19 +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 Ton asked: >> North | >> -- | >> -- | >> Q 10 9 8 | >> -- East | >> x | >> xx | >> J | >> x | >> | >> Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer | >> states the rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten about >> | the outstanding J. | > | >What I would like to know is who of us think that everybody in this | >situation will play the Q. Let us make it a poll and don't stop before | >we have at least 100 answers. To make it clear: I don't want to | >know your decision in this case, I want to know what your opinion | >about the play of the north card in trick 10 is, assuming that play | >continues. (my assumption is that 'forgot about the outstanding J' | >means she thought all her trumps to be good). Up to now, with no regulation to guide me, I would rule one trick to the defence. It might be unusual to lead small from Q1098 but if they are all equals it can hardly be irrational to lead small. I am happy with any regulation (top-down or bottom-up) - just give us a regulation! To answer Ton's poll (what card will declarer play at trick 10?) If declarer makes no claim statement - he will play the Q. If declarer does make a claim statement - he might play the Q. 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 Sat May 26 19:41:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4Q9eBL24890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 19:40:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com (juicer34.bigpond.com [139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4Q9e4t24884 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 19:40:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.52]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GDXSEH00.3R7 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 19:44:41 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-43.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.43]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Classic-MailRouter V2.9c 9/1419913); 26 May 2001 19:39:13 Message-ID: <002e01c0e5c7$5c5b16e0$2be136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 19:36:36 +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 Roger Pewick wrote: >I have a friend or two who are above the norm in intelligence. When >they believe their cards are winners they insist [against my prodding] >upon methodically playing the 8 to the point of not playing the Q. >And I witnessed at least one occasion where the 8 did not win. > >Is this the data that is being sought? I can think of at least one reason to play the 8 rather than the queen (when cashing winners from Q1098), viz. this abnormal play might distract the defenders' thought processes and cause them not to concentrate on discarding optimally. On the other hand, "playing the 8 first" may have a disadvantage if it leads a Director to rule against you on another hand when you claim. However. most good players would (incorrectly) consider themselves as being too clever to misclaim, eliminating (in their eyes) any disadvantage. Thus it makes some sense that it is intelligent and/or good players who may play the bottom card first when cashing winners. The average player (and indeed some BLMLers too) would simply not be able to see the possible advantage of cashing the lowest card first. 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 Sat May 26 20:38:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4QAbXh26162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:37:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta05.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4QAbRt26156 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:37:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from master ([63.34.199.224]) by mta05.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20010526103643.BCGG10022.mta05.mail.mel.aone.net.au@master> for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 20:36:43 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010526203141.007c0ea0@pop.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@pop.ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 20:31:41 +1000 To: From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wish I had paid more attention to the recent thread in which a simultaneous opening lead of an honour and non-honour occurred. I think that discussion almost arrived at a concensus. The other day I was called when the opening leader had placed on the table in dummy order, the 9 7 3 2 of Hearts, followed by the K 9 3 of spades before someone stepped on him. Clearly he was not intending to lead any of the exposed cards nevertheless I allowed him to consider making any opening lead from among the displayed cards. If he wished to lead another suit entirely, I said he would have to lead the SK, which would be a major penalty card in any case. Are the non-honour cards major penalty cards as well? If so can declarer demand the lead of the SK? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 26 22:39:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4QCd5L28968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:39:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4QCcut28961 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:38:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-97.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.97]) by amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id E7098176C7 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 13:37:59 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:34:27 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010526203141.007c0ea0@pop.ozemail.com.au> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Tony Musgrove (Sat 26 May 2001 11:32) writes: >The other day I was called when the opening leader had placed on the table >in dummy order, the 9 7 3 2 of Hearts, followed by the K 9 3 of spades >before someone stepped on him. Clearly he was not intending to lead >any of the exposed cards nevertheless I allowed him to consider making >any opening lead from among the displayed cards. If he wished to lead >another suit entirely, I said he would have to lead the SK, which would be >a major penalty card in any case. Are the non-honour cards major penalty >cards as well? If so can declarer demand the lead of the SK? I suggest that: (1) There has been no faced opening lead, therefore the auction period has not ended (L17E) (2) At the close of the auction each of defender's exposed cards may be treated by declarer as a penalty card (L24) (3) If more than one is so treated, they all become major penalty cards (L50B) (4) Declarer may now select the opening lead from among the penalty cards (L50D1) The use of '*may* treat' in L24 is interesting. This presumably requires the TD to say to declarer "Do you wish to treat these cards as penalty cards?" but if he does it seems to me that declarer may feel under pressure to waive the penalty. 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 May 26 23:27:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4QDRON00104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 23:27:24 +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 f4QDRCt00092 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 23:27:14 +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 153e5G-000EV4-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 May 2001 14:26:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:58:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: <3.0.6.32.20010523134041.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00b501c0e3d2$1247b320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B0CB7DE.8030406@interia.pl> <$rEB6bAiTQD7EwpA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <57ge5TE2YeD7EwpS@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: <57ge5TE2YeD7EwpS@asimere.com> 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 >Concur. (Snarl). Reinstate Gloat.sig >-- >John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game ICQ 10810798 >451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb >London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@asimere.com >+44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk Listen, sunshine, on the occasions that you have played with Caroline and I have played with Didi, I have got more ACBL masterpoints than you, yes? Anyway, what about last year when Caroline was unavailable? 1 ..... 2 DWS & Didi 3 John & Gordon [regular partner] -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 26 23:27:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4QDRPr00106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 23:27:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4QDRCt00091 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 23:27:14 +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 153e5G-000EV5-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 May 2001 14:26:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 12:01:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: <3.0.6.32.20010523134041.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00b501c0e3d2$1247b320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B0CB7DE.8030406@interia.pl> <$rEB6bAiTQD7EwpA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3B0E0AD4.4020107@interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <3B0E0AD4.4020107@interia.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 >David Stevenson wrote: >> First of all, why are you not applying the weighted score to both >> sides? >I belong to the third school (see "Nomenclature" thread"). Yes, but what about your sponsoring organisation? Remember the view of certain North Americans here: they do not want L12C3 because they assume their ACs will misiuse it and give impossible and stupid scores. In fact, if the ACBL were to introduce it they would [should?] say how it is to be applied. >> Now, how do you know that the play was similar at the other tables? >> Perhaps the 680's all had a 2D overcall, which leads to a fatal diamond >> lead. >> >> I do not think it is acceptable to use score-sheets to give assigned >> scores. >Suppose NS bid to 1NT instead 4H because they were misinformed. You >adjust to 4H 10 tricks >because your analisys of the deal leads to a conclusion that there are >10 tricks in 4H available >and no more. You consult the scoresheet and find out that *everybody* in >4H took eleven tricks. >Wouldn't that make you think that you have overlooked something in the >card play? Oh, all right, I am willing to look at the score-sheets as a *check*. But I do not make my decisions based on them which was suggested: that's not fair. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 27 00:03:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4QE3YE00946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 00:03:34 +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 f4QE3Rt00939 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 00:03:28 +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 153eeO-000Adj-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 May 2001 14:02:40 +0000 Message-ID: <3$CdY7A8c7D7Ew5D@asimere.com> Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:01:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: <3.0.6.32.20010523134041.0084b100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00b501c0e3d2$1247b320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B0CB7DE.8030406@interia.pl> <$rEB6bAiTQD7EwpA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <57ge5TE2YeD7EwpS@asimere.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 >John (MadDog) Probst writes >>Concur. (Snarl). Reinstate Gloat.sig >>-- >>John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game ICQ 10810798 >>451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb >>London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@asimere.com >>+44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk > > Listen, sunshine, on the occasions that you have played with Caroline >and I have played with Didi, I have got more ACBL masterpoints than you, >yes? > > Anyway, what about last year when Caroline was unavailable? > > 1 ..... > 2 DWS & Didi > 3 John & Gordon [regular partner] > Sigh. (Snarl). Reinstate Ungloat.sig -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! How could |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. you let |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) DWS get |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ 0.49 mps |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 May 27 02:57:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4QGurl14664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 02:56:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4QGuWt14618 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 02:56:34 +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 153hLo-000GNa-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 May 2001 16:55:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:46:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" References: <3.0.6.32.20010526203141.007c0ea0@pop.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >The use of '*may* treat' in L24 is interesting. This presumably requires >the TD to say to declarer "Do you wish to treat these cards as penalty >cards?" but if he does it seems to me that declarer may feel under pressure >to waive the penalty. Well, we would not want the TD as an alternative *not* to apply the Law, would we? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 27 02:57:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4QGv1H14674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 02:57:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4QGuWt14619 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 02:56:34 +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 153hLo-000GNZ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 May 2001 16:55:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:42:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: <200105251810.OAA23687@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200105252346.QAA21884@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200105252346.QAA21884@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 >Steve Willner wrote: > >> > From: Adam Beneschan >> > Is there any reason why the "could have known" condition should be >> > important in a case like this? >> >> If you delete the "could have known," you make the penalty for >> inadvertent infractions much more severe. Also, you make it harder for >> TD's to explain the penalty. >> >> Let's suppose you pick up a pretty good hand and open 1S. >> Unfortunately, RHO was the dealer and hasn't acted yet. LHO doesn't >> accept your BOOT, and RHO opens 4H. OK, partner is going to be barred >> for at least one round. What are you going to do? >> >> Currently, you have options (among others) of double and 4NT, both to >> play. These may not be normal contracts, but whatever the result, you >> will keep your score. It is wildly unlikely that you could have >> anticipated the 4H bid, so L23/72B1 will not apply. (OK, maybe >> somebody can construct a special hand where you could have known, but >> such hands will be rare.) >> >> Under Adam's proposal, both double and 4NT would be ruled out. > >Actually, I'm not convinced that a double would be ruled out, since >takeout doubles at high levels are frequently passed. But for the >sake of argument, let's assume that everyone in the room plays double >of 4H as takeout and treats Kaplan's dictum "Takeout doubles are meant >to be taken out" as if it were something handed down on a stone tablet >from Mt. Sinai. > >> That >> is, they would be legal calls, but if you get a good score from either >> one, the TD would take it away because if partner had not been barred, >> he would not have passed in either contract. (Again we ignore rare, >> special hands.) >> >> I don't see any reason to make the penalty so harsh. > >First of all, it's not a penalty. I'm not suggesting that in this >case we transfer two tricks to the non-offending side, or to apply the >Burn Death Penalty where we automatically score -1100 against the >offenders. I'm suggesting an adjusted score, which basically means we >determine the score that would have actually happened if there had >been no infraction. OK, so if there's more than one "at all probable" >score we assign the least favorable one. (But this may not be a >penalty, since someone who doesn't know whose turn it is to bid is >probably not going to know how to bid or play the hand correctly >anyway.) I think it *is* a penalty. For no reason at all, you are putting a cap on the score someone could have got, when they are in a fairly impossible position anyway. I do not see this Law change as necessary or desirable. We have a method of dealing with an abuse, using 'could have known': good. You are penalising people when we know there was no abuse. Why? We might as well use the Burn Death Penalty. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 27 02:57:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4QGuwx14672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 02:56:59 +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 f4QGuWt14615 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 02:56:34 +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 153hLo-0005X1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 May 2001 16:55:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:20:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010525075608.00af9ad0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010525075608.00af9ad0@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 11:00 PM 5/24/01, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau writes >> >> >When the questioned player replies with, "Yes, of course I would," we >> >discount the reply as self-serving, because we recognize that the >> >"true" answer is probably something along the lines of mine. >> >> As has been said many times, a majority of people on this list, >>including myself, do not agree with automatically discounting self- >>serving answers. So questions are useful because most of us do use the >>answers. > >David appears to have misunderstood me. I fully agree that it is wrong >in general to automatically discount "self-serving" answers; questions >can indeed be useful when we use the information we get from the >answers. But not this particular question, to which the answer, >whether self-serving or the opposite, provides no useful >information. What it does do is place an unnecessary burden on the >player asked, who must expend time and energy to do the requested >analysis. Since, in this case, we shouldn't be tempted to try to make >use of the answer, we shouldn't ask the question. Ah, well, I misunderstood the point, since you said "we discount the reply as self-serving". I think including comments like this is confusing. What it does do is place an unnecessary burden on the reader, who must expend time and energy to do the requested analysis. Hehe. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 27 02:57:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4QGv3O14677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 02:57:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4QGuWt14614 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 02:56:34 +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 153hLo-0005X3-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 May 2001 16:55:41 +0000 Message-ID: <1SGcVCCJq8D7EwL0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:23:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010525075608.00af9ad0@127.0.0.1> <002501c0e53d$9991aa40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002501c0e53d$9991aa40$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: "Eric Landau" >> At 11:00 PM 5/24/01, David wrote: >> >Eric Landau writes >> > >> > >When the questioned player replies with, "Yes, of course I would," we >> > >discount the reply as self-serving, because we recognize that the >> > >"true" answer is probably something along the lines of mine. >> > >> > As has been said many times, a majority of people on this list, >> >including myself, do not agree with automatically discounting self- >> >serving answers. So questions are useful because most of us do use the >> >answers. >> >> David appears to have misunderstood me. I fully agree that it is wrong >> in general to automatically discount "self-serving" answers; questions >> can indeed be useful when we use the information we get from the >> answers. > >I don't see how uncorroborated, possibly self-serving, testimony can be >given any weight at all. We don't say the person is lying, we >just say such statements are inadmissible if not confirmed by other >evidence. Why? This is a pretty unfortunate attitude considering how much testimony is self-serving. If you say to a table "Did the player make the call before his RHO, then *all* answers are self-serving, so you automatically discount them, and now you have nowhere to go. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 27 02:57:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4QGurp14666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 02:56:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4QGuWt14617 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 02:56:33 +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 153hLo-000NRj-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 May 2001 16:55:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:31:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <002e01c0e5c7$5c5b16e0$2be136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <002e01c0e5c7$5c5b16e0$2be136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill writes >Roger Pewick wrote: >>I have a friend or two who are above the norm in intelligence. When >>they believe their cards are winners they insist [against my prodding] >>upon methodically playing the 8 to the point of not playing the Q. >>And I witnessed at least one occasion where the 8 did not win. >> >>Is this the data that is being sought? > > >I can think of at least one reason to play the 8 rather than the >queen (when cashing winners from Q1098), viz. this abnormal >play might distract the defenders' thought processes and cause >them not to concentrate on discarding optimally. > >On the other hand, "playing the 8 first" may have a disadvantage >if it leads a Director to rule against you on another hand when you >claim. However. most good players would (incorrectly) consider >themselves as being too clever to misclaim, eliminating (in their >eyes) any disadvantage. > >Thus it makes some sense that it is intelligent and/or good players >who may play the bottom card first when cashing winners. The average >player (and indeed some BLMLers too) would simply not be able to see the >possible advantage of cashing the lowest card first. I think another reason for not cashing the top first is that it looks clever, especially in the eye of the player doing so. I am sure we have all been tempted, and probably succumbed, to lead the fourth highest against no-trumps with AKQJ9876! Medium players every so often work out the cheapest card to win a trick and play it, usually with a slightly smug air. It tells the defence a lot when the first round of trumps goes 2-3-7-6, and I can assure you it happens. I am happy with the idea of a rule that says that when adjudging claims we assume cards are cashed from the top. An excellent idea. But I do not agree it is necessarily correct *without* the rule because from experience I know it does not happen in some situations. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 27 08:50:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4QMnii12020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 08:49:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4QMnat11979 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 08:49:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-75-159.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.75.159]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4QMmDL03298; Sat, 26 May 2001 23:48:14 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002d01c0e635$fb70c220$2d417bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200105251810.OAA23687@cfa183.harvard.edu><200105252346.QAA21884@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 23:43:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn >> We might as well use the Burn >> Death Penalty. > +=+ Burn-ed at the stake, that is?+=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 27 09:44:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4QNiJo19281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 09:44:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4QNiDt19277 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 09:44:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 153niK-0004jz-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 May 2001 00:43:21 +0100 Message-ID: <0gY851Cym+D7Ewo1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 18:36:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Revoke - Ruling on disputed facts MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following has been posted in the IBLF [see my sig]. Anyone who can provide a helpful answer is invited to post a reply there. Also, if any answers here seem to help I shall copy them there. Hi directors all over the world, I have to make a director's decision for a knock-out-team-match which took place some days ago without a director there. It is board 23 of 32 in the 2nd half of the match. NS are in 1 NT, amongst others they hold Axx in diamonds opposite KQxxx. Defenders cash 4 tricks in hearts, then switch to spade, which declarer wins. He plays 2 rounds of diamonds, then drives out the ace of spades at trick 8. Defender wins, cashes club-ace and plays another club at trick 10, which declarer wins. Declarer claims the last 3 tricks for a total of 7 tricks, 1 NT +90 (same result other table). They enter the score, east shuffles his cards (at least he says, that he normally does), they put them back into the board and take out the cards of board 24. Now S, who was dummy, asks N why he didn't cash the diamonds. N says, they were 4-1, but W says 'no, i had 3' and E says 'I had 2'. No bid was made in board 24 (64B4), but E asked, whether they still can discuss this after they started the new board. He said, he followed to 2nd round of diamonds and they continue to play. After the round they check board 23, but they can't find out, whether there has been a revoke. The Score is 63:64 for NS. If a revoke had been, they would be awarded 1 trick in 1 NT, that means 1 IMP, that means a draw. As a precaution, they agreed to play an additional 8 boards (according to the regulations of contest), which NS won easily. EW congratulate (with a sour tone) and drive home. NS mail the result to the regional organisation. EW phone the regional president some days later to ask him what to do with the result. The president and the team- captains agree on a director (me) to decide the case. Some known facts in addition: 1) nobody wrote a note of board 23 after the match 2) EW are very inexperienced, NS good and very good players 3) the match took place 6 days ago 4) there was a kiebitz at the table. He was a supporter of NS, but hasn't seen, whether E followed suit in the 2nd round of diamonds. He said nothing during the discussion between board 23 and 24, nobody asked him. What is your ruling ? Was it Revoke or not ? If you take one of those, why ? (of course all the players have different rememberings about the important things) Or do you give a split score because of disputed facts ? Or do you have some different idea ? I will post my thinkings after I have seen some of your opinions, cause i dont want to influence you in advance. Thanks for your help, Joerg Fritsche -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 27 15:17:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4R5H3S16297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 15:17:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe71.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.206]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4R5Gut16293 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 15:16:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:16:05 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.206] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] Revoke - Ruling on disputed facts Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 00:12:39 -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: 27 May 2001 05:16:05.0040 (UTC) FILETIME=[20F8B300:01C0E66C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following has been posted in the IBLF [see my sig]. Anyone who can provide a helpful answer is invited to post a reply there. Also, if any answers here seem to help I shall copy them there. Hi directors all over the world, I have to make a director's decision for a knock-out-team-match which took place some days ago without a director there. It is board 23 of 32 in the 2nd half of the match. NS are in 1 NT, amongst others they hold Axx in diamonds opposite KQxxx. Defenders cash 4 tricks in hearts, then switch to spade, which declarer wins. He plays 2 rounds of diamonds, then drives out the ace of spades at trick 8. Defender wins, cashes club-ace and plays another club at trick 10, which declarer wins. Declarer claims the last 3 tricks for a total of 7 tricks, 1 NT +90 (same result other table). They enter the score, east shuffles his cards (at least he says, that he normally does), they put them back into the board and take out the cards of board 24. Now S, who was dummy, asks N why he didn't cash the diamonds. N says, they were 4-1, but W says 'no, i had 3' and E says 'I had 2'. No bid was made in board 24 (64B4), but E asked, whether they still can discuss this after they started the new board. He said, he followed to 2nd round of diamonds and they continue to play. After the round they check board 23, but they can't find out, whether there has been a revoke. The Score is 63:64 for NS. If a revoke had been, they would be awarded 1 trick in 1 NT, that means 1 IMP, that means a draw. As a precaution, they agreed to play an additional 8 boards (according to the regulations of contest), which NS won easily. EW congratulate (with a sour tone) and drive home. NS mail the result to the regional organisation. EW phone the regional president some days later to ask him what to do with the result. The president and the team- captains agree on a director (me) to decide the case. Some known facts in addition: 1) nobody wrote a note of board 23 after the match 2) EW are very inexperienced, NS good and very good players 3) the match took place 6 days ago 4) there was a kiebitz at the table. He was a supporter of NS, but hasn't seen, whether E followed suit in the 2nd round of diamonds. He said nothing during the discussion between board 23 and 24, nobody asked him. What is your ruling ? Was it Revoke or not ? If you take one of those, why ? (of course all the players have different rememberings about the important things) Or do you give a split score because of disputed facts ? Or do you have some different idea ? I will post my thinkings after I have seen some of your opinions, cause i dont want to influence you in advance. Thanks for your help, Joerg Fritsche -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- The evidence that there was a revoke is the statement of declarer to the belief that diamonds were 4-1, [who had the stiff?]. South did not charge there was a revoke, at least not until north commented about 4-1 diamonds. East claimed to have followed to the first two rounds. The cards were mixed after agreement to the score and the play had not been recreated. There is insufficient evidence to corroborate the existence of a revoke. Score stands. However, there is substantial evidence from south that there was no revoke. South queried North why he did not cash diamonds given they started with eight between them. On what basis is the query legitimate unless south felt they were cashing? And the only way he could feel they were cashing was if he felt the defenders followed to the first two rounds. The query strongly suggests that the defenders followed to the first two rounds, contrary to the belief of declarer that they did not. 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 May 27 19:02:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4R92Gt28384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 19:02:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4R929t28380 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 19:02:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-29.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.29]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4R91Hn01658 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 11:01:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B0F68CE.F1109C9@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 10:26:54 +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] Double out of turn References: <200105251547.IAA14589@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: > > OK, now that we've had a lot of discussion about what "likely" means > and what the purpose of "could have known" is, etc., I'd like to know: > Is there any reason why the "could have known" condition should be > important in a case like this? > > In my opinion, if > > (1) an enforced pass allows partner to make a call that would normally > be forcing, passed infrequently, and/or conventional; and > (2) the result is a final contract that the side did not have a good > chance of getting to absent the infraction; and > (3) the non-offenders are damaged as a result; > > the score should be adjusted, period. In a case like this, there > should be no reason to determine who could have known what or could > have been thinking what or what the offender's estimation of the > likelihood of damage should have been if he were thinking about it or > anything like that. > > It might not be necessary to change the Laws to do this. Perhaps we > (i.e. the WBFLC) could simply promulgate an interpretation that says > that if conditions (1) and (2) are met, then this is enough to satisfy > "could have known that damage was likely" condition in L23. However, > if this is too much of a stretch, I'd support a Law change to require > an adjustment in this case. > > So what does everyone else think? > Have you thought everything out ? I make an innocent infraction, and partner is silenced. Next I have to choose my bid, knowing partner is barred. Without this, I would need to choose between 1Sp and 3Sp. Now I can add 2Sp and 4Sp to my arsenal. I choose to bid 2Sp, and that is the contract. The field is in 4Sp-1. By your rules : (1) 2Sp is conventional (I play it 5-4mi) (2) this is a contract few can reach (everybody plays the same) (3) opponents are damaged Are you saying that I should not be allowed (after my infraction) to choose the natural bid of 2Sp ? I agree that it would fall under L23 if 1Sp, 3Sp and 4Sp were all out of the question, but could I really know that barring partner would benefit me? I don't think so. Your rules are good guidelines, but I don't believe they are enough. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 27 22:21:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4RCKLe14783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 22:20:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4RCKDt14739 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 22:20:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-69.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.69]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 8650537763 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 14:19:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004d01c0e6a7$4aac32e0$7eb6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: Subject: [BLML] revokes and claims Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 14:19:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004A_01C0E6B8.07FBFE60" 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_004A_01C0E6B8.07FBFE60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The discussion about a revoke included in a claim in BLML has resulted = in a proposal from my side to the deciding group in the Dutch BB not to = treat this as established revoke anymore. Look what such a discussion = means for us!=20 The reason we treated it otherwise is the wording of L 63. Nothing makes = clear that the revoke in question occurred in the previous trick, so we = included revokes declared to take place during the claim as well.=20 This leaves a problem we discovered before. Law 63A3 tells us that the = opponents get a revoke established when they acquiesce. But then 63A3 = gives another definition than 69A. By saying or otherwise admitting so = (63A3) oppposite making a call on the next board (69A). This is = confusing. I prefer following 69A, which means that we forget 63A3 as = far as the acquiescing side is involved. But I have another idea for the = new laws. Such a revoke should go to L64B, no penalty assessed. Either = the claiming side based its claim on the revoke and then it seems better = to let the TD use an equity approach if the revoke gets discovered. Or = the claimer knew about the revoke in which case this claim attack should = not be rewarded. The rights of the revoking side should not be = restricted by the claim, which they are if the time limit gets less than = without the claim.=20 May I have your opinions?=20 ton ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C0E6B8.07FBFE60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The discussion about a revoke = included in a=20 claim in BLML has resulted in a proposal from my side to the deciding = group in=20 the Dutch BB not to treat this as established revoke anymore. Look what = such a=20 discussion means for us!
The reason we treated it otherwise = is the=20 wording of L 63. Nothing makes clear that the revoke in question = occurred in the=20 previous trick, so we included revokes declared to take place during the = claim=20 as well.
 
This leaves a problem we discovered = before. Law=20 63A3 tells us that the opponents get a revoke established when they = acquiesce.=20 But then 63A3 gives another definition than 69A. By saying or otherwise=20 admitting so (63A3) oppposite making a call on the next board (69A). = This is=20 confusing. I prefer following 69A, which means that we forget 63A3 as = far as the=20 acquiescing side is involved. But I have another idea for the new laws. = Such a=20 revoke should go to L64B, no penalty assessed. Either the claiming side = based=20 its claim on the revoke and then it seems better to let the TD use an = equity=20 approach if the revoke gets discovered. Or the claimer knew about the = revoke in=20 which case this claim attack should not be rewarded. The rights of the = revoking=20 side should not be restricted by the claim, which they are if the time = limit=20 gets less than without the claim.
 
May I have your opinions? =
 
ton
------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C0E6B8.07FBFE60-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 27 23:05:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4RD5Jf01076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 23:05:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4RD5Bt01030 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 23:05:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-205.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.205]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D61CA546FB for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 14:04:19 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 14:00:46 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson (Sat 26 May 2001 16:46) writes: >> Brambledown writes >> The use of '*may* treat' in L24 is interesting. This presumably requires >> the TD to say to declarer "Do you wish to treat these cards as penalty >> cards?" but if he does it seems to me that declarer may feel under >> pressure to waive the penalty. > > Well, we would not want the TD as an alternative *not* to apply the > Law, would we? I obviously didn't make my point too well - would I suggest that the TD shouldn't apply the Law? We have a similar rigmarole following an insufficient bid. "You may accept the bid, in which case ..... If you don't then the bid is cancelled and .... No conferring ....etc." Although this is cumbersome, it is necessary. Since LHO of the insufficient bidder could have accepted it inadvertently, he clearly should be allowed the option to accept it deliberately. This argument does not seem to apply to L24. What happens under L24 if declarer declines to treat the cards as penalty cards? L49 suggests that the cards should be penalty cards anyway - that can't be right or we've wasted our time asking the question. Is the knowledge of these cards UI to offender's partner? L24 doesn't say so. If it isn't because declarer has waived all his rights then IMO we need a much stronger wording to declarer - something along the lines of "You may treat any or all of these cards as penalty cards. There will be no penalty in respect of any cards you allow to be picked up and offender's partner may take full advantage of the knowledge that his partner holds these cards". How much simpler it would all have been if L24 read "... if the offender subsequently becomes a defender, every such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50)." What was in the lawmakers' minds in making it optional? 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 Mon May 28 00:30:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4REUAH24253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 00:30:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4REU3t24224 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 00:30:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis119.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.119]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.10.12.16.25.p8) with ESMTP id <0GE0002F808NCG@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 May 2001 16:29:13 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 16:29:09 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] revokes and claims In-reply-to: <004d01c0e6a7$4aac32e0$7eb6f1c3@kooijman> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010527162529.00a1aa70@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:19 27.05.01 +0200, ton kooijman wrote: >The discussion about a revoke included in a claim in BLML has resulted in >a proposal from my side to the deciding group in the Dutch BB not to treat >this as established revoke anymore. Look what such a discussion means for us! >The reason we treated it otherwise is the wording of L 63. Nothing makes >clear that the revoke in question occurred in the previous trick, so we >included revokes declared to take place during the claim as well. > >This leaves a problem we discovered before. Law 63A3 tells us that the >opponents get a revoke established when they acquiesce. But then 63A3 >gives another definition than 69A. By saying or otherwise admitting so >(63A3) oppposite making a call on the next board (69A). This is confusing. >I prefer following 69A, which means that we forget 63A3 as far as the >acquiescing side is involved. But I have another idea for the new laws. >Such a revoke should go to L64B, no penalty assessed. Either the claiming >side based its claim on the revoke and then it seems better to let the TD >use an equity approach if the revoke gets discovered. Or the claimer knew >about the revoke in which case this claim attack should not be rewarded. >The rights of the revoking side should not be restricted by the claim, >which they are if the time limit gets less than without the claim. > >May I have your opinions? I´m not sure if I understand it... You mean here only the cases where the revoke isn´t already completed I guess? Than you have a complete YES I Like It... ;-) Cheers Richard > >ton Richard Bley -- Rechtsreferendar -- Bittweg 109 40225 Düsseldorf Tel: 0211/9 34 68 97 oder 0173/8 96 87 14 - Fax2Mail: 089/2 44 31 23 57 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 28 01:41:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4RFeok19410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 01:40:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4RFegt19354 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 01:40:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-125.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.125]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4RFdrc04095 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 17:39:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B10C859.CD700EC7@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 11:26:49 +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] More faulty directing References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010525075608.00af9ad0@127.0.0.1> <002501c0e53d$9991aa40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <1SGcVCCJq8D7EwL0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, Marv, you continue to talk next to oneanother : > > Marvin L. French writes > > > >I don't see how uncorroborated, possibly self-serving, testimony can be > >given any weight at all. We don't say the person is lying, we > >just say such statements are inadmissible if not confirmed by other > >evidence. > and David Stevenson wrote: > Why? This is a pretty unfortunate attitude considering how much > testimony is self-serving. > > If you say to a table "Did the player make the call before his RHO, > then *all* answers are self-serving, so you automatically discount them, > and now you have nowhere to go. > David : Marv sais "uncorroborated" Marv : David is talking about "corroborated" evidence. YOU ARE BOTH RIGHT - stop the discussion - it leads nowhere ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 28 03:27:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4RHPGS26917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 03:25:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4RHP8t26879 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 03:25:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-162.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.162]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id E208B5964F for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 18:24:17 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/More faulty directing) Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 18:20:43 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Herman De Wael (Tue 22 May 2001 11:12) writes: >There are two moments in this play : the 'ah' moment : this >contract is safe. And the 'ok' moment : I'll chase the ace >of spades and take 10 tricks. I think you mean HA not SA. > If this declarer claims immediately after dummy hits the > table, I'd say that he had his 'ah' moment, but not yet his > 'ok'. Consider what you would do if playing a speedball (10 > mins for 3 boards): you see the dummy, claim, and then work > out together with opponents how many tricks you have made. Ah, yes. Speedball - this may explain a lot! > OTOH, if this declarer has had some 'ok' moment, and then he > decides that he just needs his top winners and afford to > give up the last "4" tricks, then he should be kept to this > claim. IOW you believe that, to "adjudicate the result as equitably as possible" as required by L70A, the TD must decide whether declarer has had some 'ok' moment. My bemusement turns to astonishment - can we just agree to disagree? On the hand we have been discussing which is: >> Contract is 3 NT. Opening lead is a small diamond. >> AKxx QJx >> KQJ xxxx >> xx AKx >> Kxxx Axx >> Declarer sees the diamond lead and immediately says "I'll take >> my 9 top tricks in spades, diamonds and clubs and give you the rest". you say - incorrectly: > You - and others - assume that it is irrational to claim at > such a time On the contrary, I do not believe that the claim is irrational, merely careless to the point of stupidity. I do not allow it to be 'corrected' and (absent L71) he gets 8 tricks. On the hand from the "Belgian Claim" string you say: >Well, I like that example far better, since it comes from >real life ! >Maybe you should take a look at it, rather than pontificate >on principles that are patently wrong. OK then, this is the hand: > 3NT, one trick taken (HA), 3 tricks lost, to the ace and > king of diamonds and the ace of clubs, LHO on lead, time > pressure. > AK85 > - > -- > KQJ85- > > JT3 > -K5 > QT-- > 94- > > (played cards indicated with -) > Declarer claims 10 tricks, without much more of a statement, > but it is clear he intends to make 2 spades, 5 clubs, and 2 > red tricks. Since you have virtually insisted that I 'pontificate' on this hand, here it is: We only have to consider a S lead, since I gather LHO has no more Cs. Ducking this to play LHO for SQ is a rational play so if RHO has SQ (even singleton) I rule he makes it. OTOH, putting up SA to drop SQ with RHO and then leading Sx to S10 is also rational, so if LHO has SQ he makes it. I do not permit tries like SA followed by CK in case C10 is dropping (L70D). There are worse lines for declarer (like winning SA and playing SK, which could cost two tricks), but these are irrational for the class of player involved - so declarer gets 9 tricks in all. For good measure, here are my 'pontifications' in two other cases from the "More faulty directing" string: Number 1: > North > -- > -- > Q 10 9 8 > -- East > x > xx > J > x > > > Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer > states the rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten > about the outstanding J. I believe that it is irrational to play a small diamond (even if it sometimes happens!) - so 4 tricks to declarer. Here, I like David Burns' 'suggestion': > Well, we have a policy in England about which nobody knows, since it > exists only in the minutes of a meeting of our Laws Committee and > derives from a suggestion that I made a few months ago. It is this: a > declarer who claims on the basis that all the remaining cards in one >>hand are winners will have no reason to play any suit before any other > suit (even if one suit is trumps); but will not rationally play any suit > other than from the top down. Number 2 : >Oh yes, not made up, happened 2 weeks ago and I didn't prepare the board. > >A7 5 >5 AKQJ873 >KQJ10632 A5 >A62 954 > >The pair enjoyed bidding up to 7NT and after the SK lead West >counted his tricks and claimed saying 7 heart tricks, 7 diamond >tricks and 2 aces. Then south put down 109642 in hearts: 1 down. My concern here is not that he failed to consider that hearts might break n-0 but that he believed he could cope with an n-0 break. On this basis he might miss the fact that the H9 was missing after four rounds of hearts. This would be careless in the extreme, but not I think irrational. Therefore (sadly) 1 down - (he would have discarded black losers on H K,Q,J). 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 Mon May 28 04:34:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4RIYKs14579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 04:34:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4RIYCt14575 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 04:34:14 +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 1545Lv-000GX2-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 May 2001 19:33:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 19:28:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Revoke - Ruling on disputed facts References: <0gY851Cym+D7Ewo1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <0gY851Cym+D7Ewo1@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 <0gY851Cym+D7Ewo1@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > > The following has been posted in the IBLF [see my sig]. Anyone who >can provide a helpful answer is invited to post a reply there. Also, if >any answers here seem to help I shall copy them there. > > >Hi directors all over the world, > >I have to make a director's decision for a knock-out-team-match which >took place some days ago without a director there. >It is board 23 of 32 in the 2nd half of the match. >NS are in 1 NT, amongst others they hold Axx in diamonds opposite KQxxx. >Defenders cash 4 tricks in hearts, then switch to spade, which declarer >wins. He plays 2 rounds of diamonds, then drives out the ace of spades >at trick 8. Defender wins, cashes club-ace and plays another club at >trick 10, which declarer wins. Declarer claims the last 3 tricks for a >total of 7 tricks, 1 NT +90 (same result other table). >They enter the score, east shuffles his cards (at least he says, that he >normally does), they put them back into the board and take out the cards >of board 24. Now S, who was dummy, asks N why he didn't cash the >diamonds. N says, they were 4-1, but W says 'no, i had 3' and E says 'I >had 2'. No bid was made in board 24 (64B4), but E asked, whether they >still can discuss this after they started the new board. He said, he >followed to 2nd round of diamonds and they continue to play. >After the round they check board 23, but they can't find out, whether >there has been a revoke. The Score is 63:64 for NS. If a revoke had >been, they would be awarded 1 trick in 1 NT, that means 1 IMP, that >means a draw. As a precaution, they agreed to play an additional 8 >boards (according to the regulations of contest), which NS won easily. >EW congratulate (with a sour tone) and drive home. NS mail the result to >the regional organisation. EW phone the regional president some days >later to ask him what to do with the result. The president and the team- >captains agree on a director (me) to decide the case. > >Some known facts in addition: >1) nobody wrote a note of board 23 after the match >2) EW are very inexperienced, NS good and very good players >3) the match took place 6 days ago >4) there was a kiebitz at the table. He was a supporter of NS, but >hasn't seen, whether E followed suit in the 2nd round of diamonds. He >said nothing during the discussion between board 23 and 24, nobody asked >him. > > >What is your ruling ? >Was it Revoke or not ? If you take one of those, why ? (of course all >the players have different rememberings about the important things) >Or do you give a split score because of disputed facts ? >Or do you have some different idea ? > Essentially the score is agreed and the players are on the next hand, but no call has been made. Thus we should stop any play on 24 and investigate 23. L64B4. In the absence of a TD I'd take East's enquiry as a call for a ruling at that point One must decide why declarer only played two rounds of diamonds and whether this constitutes a valid reason to believe that there was a revoke. You might enquire whether East had pitched a diamond smoothly on the fourth heart. If in your opinion this is sufficient cause to judge that a revoke did take place then the score should be adjusted to that which would obtain if a revoke penalty had to be paid. The evidence in this case is not strong as dummy is of the opinion that no revoke took place, from his enquiry. Given this I rule no adjustment. cheers john >I will post my thinkings after I have seen some of your opinions, cause >i dont want to influence you in advance. > >Thanks for your help, > >Joerg Fritsche > -- 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 May 28 08:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4RM2UY19396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 08:02:30 +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-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 f4RM2Mt19392 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 08:02:23 +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 f4RM1TK78256 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 18:01:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010527171928.00ab65b0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 18:01:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010525135515.007b8bb0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010525141316.00b03500@127.0.0.1> <002501c0e53d$9991aa40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010525075608.00af9ad0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:55 PM 5/25/01, Grant wrote: >At 02:38 PM 5/25/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >At 01:10 PM 5/25/01, Marvin wrote: > > > >>Exactly. I find it odd that while David is of the opinion that taking a > >>player away from the table to ask what s/he would have done absent MI, > >>when too late to change a call, is not right, he opines that it's > okay to > >>ask a player if s/he would have executed a line of play that hir > partner > >>has found to invalidate a claim. > >> > >>In either case, and for the same reasons, we shouldn't ask the > question. > > > >With this I agree. Testimony as to what someone might have done in > >some hypothetical situation (e.g. if they hadn't had MI, or if they had > >played out a deal on which they in fact claimed) is a very different > >thing from testimony as to what actually happened, and should not be > >sought or used to make judgments. > > > >The vast majority of bridge players are essentially honest; if asked > >what they *did* they will do their best to answer truthfully. But the > >vast majority of bridge players are neither modest nor self-effacing; > >if asked what they *would have done if...* they will naturally give > >themselves the benefit of any doubt. As TDs (or AC members) we should > >distinguish these situations, and act accordingly. > > I disagree. As you have already said, we take the evidence we >have been given and filter it according to the situation. So why not >take the information we get in these cases and filter it? Why shouldn't >your principle apply to these cases as well? You say that the vast >majority of players will give themselves the benefit of the doubt--OK, >we can take that into account. > > (Unlike DWS, I would even want to ask the player in the MI case >what he thinks he would have done absent the MI, while not being bound >to assume that his answer must be what he really would have done. It's >evidence. I take it, and weigh it.) To take it into account, though, you must judge the credibility of each individual player/witness. When someone is either telling the truth or lying about something that happened, we can, in theory, like juries in a courtroom, do our best to make such judgments. In real life we almost always simply accept such statements of fact, because we don't expect our players to lie to us, and have found that for the most part they apparently don't, and also, to some extent, because we know that not accepting them may produce some unpleasant incident or ugly talk. We are, in general, comfortable with a jurisprudence based on making judgments about whether something someone tells us is a straight-out lie. But that's not the case here. You are not asking for testimony about something which happened, which can be given truthfully or otherwise. You are, in effect, giving the player a play problem (or in the MI case, a bidding problem), which he will take on as a problem, with whatever additional knowledge he may already have (which, in the case at hand, includes the winning play, which has already been revealed to him by his partner!), and solve it. Now you ask him whether he would have found the solution at the table, but how can he know? He can't, and neither can you; whether he replies with a confident and self-assured yes or a modest and self-effacing no (or a truly honest how-the-hell-do-I-know), you can't tell whether he is telling the truth or lying, because he is doing neither; he is only projecting a hypothetical scenario which you have created for him. But once you ask and he answers, he has put his credibility on the line. Now if you discount his presumptive imaginings in response to your hypothetical scenario, you will be perceived to be calling him a liar just as surely as if you discounted some statement of purported fact. And if one accepts, perhaps allowing for a bit of hyperbole, that the vast majority of bridge players will give themselves the benefit of the doubt in such situations, you will do this almost every time. And gain no (or, at best, very little) useful information in the process. 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 May 28 09:07:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4RN6mh22638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 09:06:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4RN6Xt22633 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 09:06:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA20297 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 09:11:10 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 28 May 2001 08:57:01 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 09:03:36 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/05/2001 09:01:24 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >I can think of at least one reason to play the 8 rather than the >queen (when cashing winners from Q1098), viz. this abnormal >play might distract the defenders' thought processes and cause >them not to concentrate on discarding optimally. [snip] Another reason to play the eight when only the jack is outstanding is if the player is under the misapprehension that the king is unplayed as well, and the player hopes that the phantasmagorical king is singleton and the actual jack is doubleton. (Thinking opponents still have winners which have already been played is an *irrational* error I frequently make, as cows often fly past me.) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 28 10:34:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4S0XnJ22786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 10:33:49 +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-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 f4S0Xft22782 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 10:33:42 +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 154Axf-000A76-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 May 2001 01:32:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:58:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" 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 26 May 2001 16:46) writes: >>> Brambledown writes >>> The use of '*may* treat' in L24 is interesting. This presumably requires >>> the TD to say to declarer "Do you wish to treat these cards as penalty >>> cards?" but if he does it seems to me that declarer may feel under >>> pressure to waive the penalty. >> >> Well, we would not want the TD as an alternative *not* to apply the >> Law, would we? > >I obviously didn't make my point too well - would I suggest that the TD >shouldn't apply the Law? > >We have a similar rigmarole following an insufficient bid. "You may accept >the bid, in which case ..... If you don't then the bid is cancelled and >.... No conferring ....etc." Although this is cumbersome, it is >necessary. Since LHO of the insufficient bidder could have accepted it >inadvertently, he clearly should be allowed the option to accept it >deliberately. This argument does not seem to apply to L24. > >What happens under L24 if declarer declines to treat the cards as penalty >cards? L49 suggests that the cards should be penalty cards anyway - that >can't be right or we've wasted our time asking the question. It is not right. L49 applies to cards visible during the play: if the declarer-to-be does not want them as penalty cards then they will be picked up before the opening lead is faced and L49 does not apply. > Is the >knowledge of these cards UI to offender's partner? L24 doesn't say so. >If it isn't because declarer has waived all his rights then IMO we need a >much stronger wording to declarer - something along the lines of "You may >treat any or all of these cards as penalty cards. There will be no penalty >in respect of any cards you allow to be picked up and offender's partner may >take full advantage of the knowledge that his partner holds these cards". > >How much simpler it would all have been if L24 read "... if the offender >subsequently becomes a defender, every such card becomes a penalty card (Law >50)." What was in the lawmakers' minds in making it optional? I am not sure that simplicity is desirable. We could reduce the Law book to two Laws [don't argue with the Director and hesitators will be shot, perhaps?] which would be simpler, but it would be inferior. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 28 11:09:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4S19OM22894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 11:09:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4S19Gt22890 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 11:09:17 +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 154BWD-000C9u-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 May 2001 02:08:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 01:50:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010525141316.00b03500@127.0.0.1> <002501c0e53d$9991aa40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0e142$f05d2060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <014401c0e279$338ef160$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010523120005.007cf2f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b401c0e3d2$115515c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010524075558.00afa5e0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010525075608.00af9ad0@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010525135515.007b8bb0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010527171928.00ab65b0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010527171928.00ab65b0@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 02:55 PM 5/25/01, Grant wrote: >> (Unlike DWS, I would even want to ask the player in the MI case >>what he thinks he would have done absent the MI, while not being bound >>to assume that his answer must be what he really would have done. It's >>evidence. I take it, and weigh it.) >To take it into account, though, you must judge the credibility of each >individual player/witness. When someone is either telling the truth or >lying about something that happened, we can, in theory, like juries in >a courtroom, do our best to make such judgments. In real life we >almost always simply accept such statements of fact, because we don't >expect our players to lie to us, and have found that for the most part >they apparently don't, and also, to some extent, because we know that >not accepting them may produce some unpleasant incident or ugly >talk. We are, in general, comfortable with a jurisprudence based on >making judgments about whether something someone tells us is a >straight-out lie. Also, very importantly, I expect to judge the general truth from testimony given in front of some very critical people, namely the opponents. I am not judging just from what someone says to me, but also the reaction of the other people present. But that does not work with one person taken away from the table. He is asked to make a bridge decision in the wrong situation and with no way that I can judge it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 28 16:53:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4S6qPE05536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:52:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4S6qEt05489 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:52:15 +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 f4S6qSa20383 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 23:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001c01c0e742$8f3be9a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 23:50:53 -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: "Brambledown" > How much simpler it would all have been if L24 read "... if the offender > subsequently becomes a defender, every such card becomes a penalty card (Law > 50)." What was in the lawmakers' minds in making it optional? > > Chas Fellows It does some strange. The Laws of the 1940s said that every such card remains on the table until the auction is over and then declarer "may treat every such card as a penalty card." However, declarer had a second choice if it was the other defender's turn to lead, which was to forbid or require the lead of a specified suit, in which case the card or cards were picked up. The words used were "until after declarer has selected a penalty," implying that there would be a penalty in any case. As is often true, the "or" used to connect the two options was a bit ambiguous. Did it mean the penalty card option applied if the offender was on lead, and the other option applied if the partner was on lead? No, because "has selected a penalty" would be meaningless. At that time this law was clumsily written and had a couple of footnotes. It is tempting to speculate that the second option was inadvertently omitted when rewriting it for some later edition. It was gone by 1963. 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 May 28 22:58:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4SCuux25413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 22:56:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4SCumt25409 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 22:56:50 +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 OAA21152; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:55:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA07216; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:55:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010528145949.008532b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:59:49 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" In-Reply-To: <001c01c0e742$8f3be9a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >It does some strange. The Laws of the 1940s said that every such card >remains on the table until the auction is over and then declarer "may >treat every such card as a penalty card." However, declarer had a second >choice if it was the other defender's turn to lead, which was to forbid or >require the lead of a specified suit, in which case the card or cards were >picked up. > >The words used were "until after declarer has selected a penalty," AG : this gives a hint on why the declarer is not complelled to treat the cards as penalty cards. He may decline to do so, thus not imposing any penalty on pertner ; and he may then treat the cards as penalty cards later in the course of the deal, where it would be more profitable to him. If he had to make a choice of options early in the deal, it is well possible that he wouldn't know what to choose, but he might know better several tricks later. Or, the compelled lead of the MPC may be more useful to him later. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 29 00:58:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4SEwBh23265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 00:58:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4SEw4t23225 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 00:58:04 +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 QAA18653; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:53:38 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA24187; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:57:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010528170107.0084be40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 17:01:07 +0200 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-Reply-To: <200105221539.QAA19597@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:39 22/05/01 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: > >> From: alain gottcheiner >[ snip ] >> *But* if East plays penalty doubles, then the forced pass didn't bring him >> anything more than he could have obtained by an in-rotation double. In this >> case, L23 wouldn't be applicable. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Alain >> > >Hi Alain, > >Even if East plays penalty doubles, he may not get to make an >in-rotation double, his idiot CHO may be about to bid clubs: >so a preemptive double may still be to East's advantage. AG : indeed. I overlooked that one. >I (still) think this is L23 case. The difficulty is deciding >likely results: we can then apply L12C2 or L12C3 depending on >our locality. > >There is a case for 60/40 of those results where South opened >2H(weak), but this is not a practical score to calculate. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 29 04:40:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4SIe1608014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 04:40:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4SIdst08010 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 04:39:55 +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 f4SIe7a23355 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 11:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002801c0e7a5$5f68d5e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20010528145949.008532b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:37:55 -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: "alain gottcheiner" > Marvin L. French wrote: (In regard to declarer's option in L24) > >It does some strange. The Laws of the 1940s said that every such card > >remains on the table until the auction is over and then declarer "may > >treat every such card as a penalty card." However, declarer had a second > >choice if it was the other defender's turn to lead, which was to forbid or > >require the lead of a specified suit, in which case the card or cards were > >picked up. > > > >The words used were "until after declarer has selected a penalty," > > AG : this gives a hint on why the declarer is not complelled to treat the > cards as penalty cards. He may decline to do so, thus not imposing any > penalty on pertner ; and he may then treat the cards as penalty cards later > in the course of the deal, where it would be more profitable to him. If he > had to make a choice of options early in the deal, it is well possible that > he wouldn't know what to choose, but he might know better several tricks > later. Or, the compelled lead of the MPC may be more useful to him later. > Not so, as I'm sure the penalty selection had to be made before the opening lead. The lead penalty applied only to the "opening lead." Perhaps I should have quoted the pertinent parts of the law (L21 then) entirely. It went like this: If a player discloses an Ace, King, Queen or Jack; or a lower card prematurely led; or more than one card, PENALTY - The owner's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call; and if the owner becomes a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card,* or--if it is the other defender's opening lead--may require or forbid the opening lead of a specified suit. * Any card subject to this clause should be left face up on the table until after the auction closes, and--if the owner becomes a defender--until after declarer has selected a penalty. If declarer selects the lead penalty, all such cards may be picked up. 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 May 29 07:34:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4SLXxd18998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 07:33:59 +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-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 f4SLXqt18951 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 07:33:53 +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 f4SLWxE79556 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 17:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010528170558.00b0e180@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, 28 May 2001 17:33:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" In-Reply-To: <002801c0e7a5$5f68d5e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20010528145949.008532b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:37 PM 5/28/01, Marvin wrote: >Perhaps I should have quoted the pertinent parts of the law (L21 then) >entirely. It went like this: > >If a player discloses an Ace, King, Queen or Jack; or a lower card >prematurely led; or more than one card, > >PENALTY - The owner's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call; >and if the owner becomes a defender, declarer may treat every such card as >a penalty card,* or--if it is the other defender's opening lead--may >require or forbid the opening lead of a specified suit. > >* Any card subject to this clause should be left face up on the table >until after the auction closes, and--if the owner becomes a >defender--until after declarer has selected a penalty. If declarer selects >the lead penalty, all such cards may be picked up. The wording here is perfectly reasonable, and not at all unlike simply treating them as penalty cards, given allowance for the changes in TFLB over the years regarding the disposition of penalty cards, which have been more a matter of clarifying ambiguous details than modifying the basic principle. In context, the use of "may" suggests a choice of penalties (similar to what is now covered in L51) rather than an explicitly granted option to waive the penalty entirely. If I had to guess, it would be that the use of "may" in the current version of TFLB is a leftover flaw in the grammar not meant to suggest that declarer has some special right to grant a waiver. Moreover, the same sentence contains a parenthetical reference to L50, which specifically states that they are "penalty card[s] unless the Director designates otherwise", which hardly suggests that declarer has some special right to such a designation. 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 May 29 08:26:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4SMQTM07684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 08:26:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4SMQLt07651 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 08:26:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4SFb5D05024 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:37:05 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 15:30:25 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.6.32.20010528145949.008532b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010528170558.00b0e180@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010528170558.00b0e180@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01052815370400.04904@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 28 May 2001, Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:37 PM 5/28/01, Marvin wrote: > > >Perhaps I should have quoted the pertinent parts of the law (L21 then) > >entirely. It went like this: > > > >If a player discloses an Ace, King, Queen or Jack; or a lower card > >prematurely led; or more than one card, > > > >PENALTY - The owner's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call; > >and if the owner becomes a defender, declarer may treat every such card as > >a penalty card,* or--if it is the other defender's opening lead--may > >require or forbid the opening lead of a specified suit. > > > >* Any card subject to this clause should be left face up on the table > >until after the auction closes, and--if the owner becomes a > >defender--until after declarer has selected a penalty. If declarer selects > >the lead penalty, all such cards may be picked up. > > The wording here is perfectly reasonable, and not at all unlike simply > treating them as penalty cards, given allowance for the changes in TFLB > over the years regarding the disposition of penalty cards, which have > been more a matter of clarifying ambiguous details than modifying the > basic principle. Actually, there was a distinction between these cards and penalty cards, which has now been lost. Declarer could require the opening lead of any specified suit, while with an ordinary penalty card, he may require or forbid the lead of only the suit of the penalty card. This is the apparent reason for the "or" clause. There is a similar distinction in the current Law book for a faced opening lead out of turn. Declarer may treat the opening lead as a penalty card (and require or forbid its suit as usual), or accept the lead (as with any other lead out of turn), or he may choose to become dummy. But I agree that the "may" seems to have been left there by mistake. Declarer is not allowed to waive any other penalty on his own initiative. -- 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 May 29 09:19:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4SNIsI26215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 09:18:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f4SNImt26181 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 09:18:48 +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 154WGp-000JIK-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 May 2001 00:17:57 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 23:27:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Sympathetic weighting 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 >If you are going to use L12C3 at all, sympathetic weighting makes the >most sense to me. We want to make sure the NOS is fully compensated >and also discourage future infractions, and as someone (Grant?) said, >not all infractions will be reported. > >If we are going to adopt this method, how much sympathy should we >allow? Suppose there is a 50-50 guess, and as far as we can >analyze, there are no clues from the bidding or early play. Under >L12C2, there is no problem: we give the NOS the full benefit of >getting the guess right. Under "true weighting," we give 50% of >each result. What would we give under "sympathetic weighting?" I'd >argue for 60% by analogy to artificial scores, but like all arguments >by analogy, this one isn't definitive. I think 60% is what English TDs see as about right. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 29 09:19:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4SNJ0G26244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 09:19:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4SNIpt26206 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 09:18:52 +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 154WGp-000JIJ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 May 2001 00:17:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 23:26:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature References: <200105241558.LAA14583@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200105241558.LAA14583@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: Herman De Wael >> > The WBF say that a TD or AC should calculate the weightings as >> > accurately as possible, apply them to both sides, and routinely apply a >> > PP to the offenders to discourage the infraction. >> I would call this the True Expected Value. >Not bad, but a bit long. Also, in my opinion 'weighting' would be a >better noun than 'value' because it better describes what you are >doing. How about "true weighting" or "expected weighting?" Or >"expectation weighting?" I wanted a single word really, but it seems to me that what we are describing here is the form of weighting to be applied. So an adjunct to weighting seems acceptable. "True" weighting is simplest. >> > The EBL say that a TD or AC should calculate the weightings with a >> > benefit of doubt to the non-offenders, apply them to both sides, and >> > allow the benefit of doubt to discourage the infraction and to make sure >> > that the non-offenders are not damaged if the TD or AC has the >> > weightings slightly wrong. >> >> I would call that the Adjusted Expected Value. > >"Sympathetic Weighting?" Or maybe "Corrective Weighting?" Words such >as 'punitive' or 'biased' are correct but too pejorative. 'Adjusted' >seems too vague. I like 'sympathetic' because it emphasizes >compensation to the NOS rather than punishment of the OS. "Sympathetic" weighting seems best. It gives an impression of the way it is corrected. >> > Some authorities suggest calculating the weighting as the EBL suggests >> > but only for the non-offenders, and give the offenders their normal >> > score under L12C2, ie weighting should only be give to non-offenders. >> >> I feel this is incorrect and would call it the American Way. > >:-( There is no "American Way" to apply L12C3, of course. > >A complete description would be "split score with weighted score >for only the NOS," but that's a bit long. "One-way weighted score" >or "one-way weighting" might do. "One-way" weighting? It does not really sound right, does it? But it gives the right impression. Can anyone improve on it? "Skewed"? So, we now have three methods of weighting, "True", "Sympathetic" and "One-way". -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 29 09:24:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4SNNtB27956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 09:23:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4SNNmt27914 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 09:23:49 +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 f4SNO1a28972 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009101c0e7cc$d67f8580$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.6.32.20010528145949.008532b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010528170558.00b0e180@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 16:20:47 -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 From: "Eric Landau" > At 02:37 PM 5/28/01, Marvin wrote: > > >Perhaps I should have quoted the pertinent parts of the law (L21 then) > >entirely. It went like this: > > > >If a player discloses an Ace, King, Queen or Jack; or a lower card > >prematurely led; or more than one card, > > > >PENALTY - The owner's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to > > call; and if the owner becomes a defender, declarer may treat every > >such card as a penalty card,* or--if it is the other defender's > >opening lead--may require or forbid the opening lead of a specified > >suit. > > > > *Any card subject to this clause should be left face up on the table > >until after the auction closes, and--if the owner becomes a > >defender--until after declarer has selected a penalty. If declarer selects > >the lead penalty, all such cards may be picked up. > > The wording here is perfectly reasonable, and not at all unlike simply > treating them as penalty cards, given allowance for the changes in TFLB > over the years regarding the disposition of penalty cards, which have > been more a matter of clarifying ambiguous details than modifying the > basic principle. In context, the use of "may" suggests a choice of > penalties (similar to what is now covered in L51) rather than an > explicitly granted option to waive the penalty entirely. If I had to > guess, it would be that the use of "may" in the current version of TFLB > is a leftover flaw in the grammar not meant to suggest that declarer > has some special right to grant a waiver. Exactly the clue that led me to look in the old Laws. I took the "may" to mean, looking at the old language, that an alternative lead penalty "may" be imposed as an alternative (when the offender's partner is on lead), with no waiver allowed. It's not a flaw in the grammar if there are two options that declarer "may" take. As I see it, the second option was dropped, inadvertently or not, which leaves the "may" with a different implication (i.e., a waiver right). There must be a mistake somewhere, since a waiver doesn't make much sense. The ACBL for years did not give the declarer any choice in the matter, saying that the TD must treat the exposed face card as a penalty card during the play. When I questioned this violation of L24, "they" said it was out of fear that players might waive the penalty selectively, maybe for a friend or a well-placed opponent. Perhaps prompted by e-mail from a BLMLer, the ACBL LC told everyone in ACBL-land to follow the letter of the law: It's declarer's option. Having some second thoughts after the LC instruction, and wondering why on earth the Laws would give a declarer this option, I pulled out the old Laws and found the above. > Moreover, the same sentence > contains a parenthetical reference to L50, which specifically states > that they are "penalty card[s] unless the Director designates > otherwise", which hardly suggests that declarer has some special right > to such a designation. > I believe that this sentence from the first paragraph of L50 refers to cards exposed during the play, not during the auction. L24 refers to L50 only to avoid duplicating the language concerning the disposition of a penalty card. 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 May 29 09:47:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4SNhwl05051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 09:43:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4SNhpt05013 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 09:43:52 +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 f4SNi4a01324 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b101c0e7cf$970e09a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.6.32.20010528145949.008532b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010528170558.00b0e180@127.0.0.1> <01052815370400.04904@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 16:40:21 -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" (in an intelligent discussion of L24) > But I agree that the "may" seems to have been left there by mistake. > Declarer is not allowed to waive any other penalty on his own > initiative. > Well, there is the acceptance of a lead out of turn by an opponent. Since the Laws say there is no penalty when declarer accepts such a lead, turning it into a correct lead, perhaps David is right. If there is no penalty, there is nothing to waive. There is a difference between choosing not to impose a penalty and waiving one that is mandated. L24 gives the declarer the right to impose a penalty. If the right is not exercised, then there is no penalty to waive. 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 May 29 10:29:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4T0QDp19965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 10:26:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4T0Q1t19900 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 10:26:06 +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 154XJt-000DZL-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 May 2001 00:25:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 01:22:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Sympathetic weighting 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 > >Steve Willner writes > >>If you are going to use L12C3 at all, sympathetic weighting makes the >>most sense to me. We want to make sure the NOS is fully compensated >>and also discourage future infractions, and as someone (Grant?) said, >>not all infractions will be reported. >> >>If we are going to adopt this method, how much sympathy should we >>allow? Suppose there is a 50-50 guess, and as far as we can >>analyze, there are no clues from the bidding or early play. Under >>L12C2, there is no problem: we give the NOS the full benefit of >>getting the guess right. Under "true weighting," we give 50% of >>each result. What would we give under "sympathetic weighting?" I'd >>argue for 60% by analogy to artificial scores, but like all arguments >>by analogy, this one isn't definitive. > > I think 60% is what English TDs see as about right. > DWS who does much of our training but is subject to the overall control of our CTD, Max Bavin, suggested we should move from what we consider the "true weighting" by about 10%. I think all the EBU TD's I've consulted with do the same. So if we're thinking 30% NOs, 70% Os, then we award 40% to the NOs and 60% to the O's - and in my case I explain how I got to my final figure including the adjustment. 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 May 29 10:30:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4T0ROI20394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 10:27:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4T0RHt20345 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 10:27:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4SHc0u05751 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 May 2001 17:38:00 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 17:24:20 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <01052815370400.04904@psa836> <00b101c0e7cf$970e09a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00b101c0e7cf$970e09a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01052817380001.04904@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 28 May 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > From: "David J Grabiner" (in an intelligent discussion of L24) > > > But I agree that the "may" seems to have been left there by mistake. > > Declarer is not allowed to waive any other penalty on his own > > initiative. > > > Well, there is the acceptance of a lead out of turn by an opponent. Since > the Laws say there is no penalty when declarer accepts such a lead, > turning it into a correct lead, perhaps David is right. If there is no > penalty, there is nothing to waive. The acceptance of illegal actions is allowed in many situations; you may accept an opponent's insufficient bid, or bid out of turn, or failure to play a penalty card. This needs to be allowed because actions are often implicitly condoned by normal (possibly accidental) subsequent actions; if the player next in rotation after a lead out of turn follows to it, or the next player doubles an insufficient bid, the infraction stands as legal. Even in those cases in which the action cannot be legalized (bids of more than seven, calls after the final pass, inadmissible doubles and redoubles, passes out of rotation denying a player the right to call), if the next player calls, the infraction is withdrawn without penalty. The most common cases of accidental condoning are probably leads out of turn; if declarer is in dummy and leads from his hand by mistake, his LHO often follows to the lead. He cannot lose his right to follow to the lead by calling the Director. (Is this also the logic for the 1987 change allowing declarer to accept the OLOOT by becoming dummy? In 1975, declarer did not have that option, but if he did spread his hand as though he were dummy, he became dummy.) The principle seems to be that a player may accept an infraction which is part of the game of bridge, but if he rejects it, or if the infraction is not part of the game of bridge (dropped cards during the auction), he must select a penalty or ask the Director to waive 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 Tue May 29 17:51:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4T7m4004284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 17:48:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4T7lwt04280 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 17:47:59 +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 RAA13163 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 17:52:36 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 29 May 2001 17:38:25 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 17:45:02 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 29/05/2001 05:42:47 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The introduction to Law 90 - Procedural Penalties, makes it clear (to me at least) that PPs should be assessed only if damage or disruption is caused. On the other hand, the Nazgul school of tournament directors would procedurally penalise any and all irregularities made by anyone at anytime. In an event run by a Nazgul director, most of the field gets penalised for not counting their cards properly. The good news is that the Nazgul is never invited to direct an event again. :-) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 29 19:09:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4T945K04451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 19:04:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com (juicer38.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4T940t04447 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 19:04:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.75]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GE3AQ800.3C4 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 19:08:32 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-167.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.167]) by bwmam03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9d 8323/1453499); 29 May 2001 19:08:32 Message-ID: <018301c0e81d$caddc100$a7d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:00:21 +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: > Of course, we could call them Method A, B, C or the like, but >that is not memorable. > > So what I should like are three names for the three methods that >are not prejudicial, and are easy to remember. Any offers, please? How about Heavyweighting, Middleweighting and Lightweighting, abbreviated to Hw, Mw and Lw if need be? Not that far from being descriptive, and certainly fulfilling the above requirements. 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 Tue May 29 20:32:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TAQYj04652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 20:26:34 +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 f4TAQQt04648 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 20:26:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-23.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.23]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4TAPLn29709 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 12:25:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:42:07 +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] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/More faulty directing) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chas and I seem to be less far apart than we often assume. I find his contribution extremely worth-while : Brambledown wrote: > > > Herman De Wael (Tue 22 May 2001 11:12) writes: > >There are two moments in this play : the 'ah' moment : this > >contract is safe. And the 'ok' moment : I'll chase the ace > >of spades and take 10 tricks. > > I think you mean HA not SA. > yep. > > If this declarer claims immediately after dummy hits the > > table, I'd say that he had his 'ah' moment, but not yet his > > 'ok'. Consider what you would do if playing a speedball (10 > > mins for 3 boards): you see the dummy, claim, and then work > > out together with opponents how many tricks you have made. > > Ah, yes. Speedball - this may explain a lot! > Well indeed, in speedball the above occurence is logical and can happen in real life. In any normal tournament, this will not happen, so it is silly of us to defend rulings about it. Would you agree with a ruling of 10 tricks in a speedball ? Then let's drop the case. In a real tournament we shall rule one of the following : - declarer was thinking he was playing a speedball and he gets 10 tricks; or - declarer is a lunatic and he gets 8 tricks. > > OTOH, if this declarer has had some 'ok' moment, and then he > > decides that he just needs his top winners and afford to > > give up the last "4" tricks, then he should be kept to this > > claim. > > IOW you believe that, to "adjudicate the result as equitably as possible" as > required by L70A, the TD must decide whether declarer has had some 'ok' > moment. My bemusement turns to astonishment - can we just agree to > disagree? > disagree on what ? On the ruling - OK, we are obviously ruling on different interpretations of incomplete facts. disagree on the principle ? you would be wrong. The TD has to judge equity, and in order to do that he needs to know what went on in claimer's mind. One of the important pieces of that knowledge is whether declarer thought the Ace had gone or not. That translates, IMO, to the difference between 'ah' and 'ok'. > On the hand we have been discussing which is: > > >> Contract is 3 NT. Opening lead is a small diamond. > >> AKxx QJx > >> KQJ xxxx > >> xx AKx > >> Kxxx Axx > >> Declarer sees the diamond lead and immediately says "I'll take > >> my 9 top tricks in spades, diamonds and clubs and give you the rest". > > you say - incorrectly: > > > You - and others - assume that it is irrational to claim at > > such a time > > On the contrary, I do not believe that the claim is irrational, merely > careless to the point of stupidity. I do not allow it to be 'corrected' and > (absent L71) he gets 8 tricks. > careless to the point of stupidity or irrational, what's the difference. I interpret the happenings in such a way that claimer is not stupid, but merely hasty. > On the hand from the "Belgian Claim" string you say: > > >Well, I like that example far better, since it comes from > >real life ! > >Maybe you should take a look at it, rather than pontificate > >on principles that are patently wrong. > > OK then, this is the hand: > > > 3NT, one trick taken (HA), 3 tricks lost, to the ace and > > king of diamonds and the ace of clubs, LHO on lead, time > > pressure. > > > AK85 > > - > > -- > > KQJ85- > > > > JT3 > > -K5 > > QT-- > > 94- > > > > (played cards indicated with -) > > Declarer claims 10 tricks, without much more of a statement, > > but it is clear he intends to make 2 spades, 5 clubs, and 2 > > red tricks. > > Since you have virtually insisted that I 'pontificate' on this hand, here > it is: > We only have to consider a S lead, since I gather LHO has no more Cs. > Ducking this to play LHO for SQ is a rational play so if RHO has SQ (even > singleton) I rule he makes it. OTOH, putting up SA to drop SQ with RHO and > then leading Sx to S10 is also rational, so if LHO has SQ he makes it. I > do not permit tries like SA followed by CK in case C10 is dropping (L70D). > There are worse lines for declarer (like winning SA and playing SK, which > could cost two tricks), but these are irrational for the class of player > involved - so declarer gets 9 tricks in all. > You see - we agree completely ! > For good measure, here are my 'pontifications' in two other cases from the > "More faulty directing" string: > > Number 1: > > > North > > -- > > -- > > Q 10 9 8 > > -- East > > x > > xx > > J > > x > > > > > > Declarer (south) is in dummy with diamonds trumps. Declarer > > states the rest are all good, and admits she has forgotten > > about the outstanding J. > > I believe that it is irrational to play a small diamond (even if it > sometimes happens!) - so 4 tricks to declarer. > I was of the same opinion but I am leaning towards the reverse. In real life, claimer will often say "diamonds", thereby indicating the smallest one (unless his intention is incontrovertible, which in this case it isn't - since he did not believe the jack was still out) I find that this is so near the border that I would prefer the doubt to remain and go against claimer. But that is certainly not a point of argument between us. > Here, I like David Burns' 'suggestion': > > > Well, we have a policy in England about which nobody knows, since it > > exists only in the minutes of a meeting of our Laws Committee and > > derives from a suggestion that I made a few months ago. It is this: a > > declarer who claims on the basis that all the remaining cards in one > >>hand are winners will have no reason to play any suit before any other > > suit (even if one suit is trumps); but will not rationally play any suit > > other than from the top down. > > Number 2 : > > >Oh yes, not made up, happened 2 weeks ago and I didn't prepare the board. > > > >A7 5 > >5 AKQJ873 > >KQJ10632 A5 > >A62 954 > > > >The pair enjoyed bidding up to 7NT and after the SK lead West > >counted his tricks and claimed saying 7 heart tricks, 7 diamond > >tricks and 2 aces. Then south put down 109642 in hearts: 1 down. > > My concern here is not that he failed to consider that hearts might break > n-0 but that he believed he could cope with an n-0 break. On this basis he > might miss the fact that the H9 was missing after four rounds of hearts. > This would be careless in the extreme, but not I think irrational. > Therefore (sadly) 1 down - (he would have discarded black losers on H > K,Q,J). > No, he would have cashed the CA first - 7 down. But as you know, I don't believe that this declarer believed anything in the heart suit. He never even counted them before claiming. He will count them before playing on, and he will make 13 tricks. > 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/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 29 20:43:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TAcEt04677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 20:38:14 +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-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 f4TAc8t04673 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 20:38:09 +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 154gs7-00085U-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 May 2001 10:37:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 02:22:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" References: <3.0.6.32.20010528145949.008532b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010528170558.00b0e180@127.0.0.1> <01052815370400.04904@psa836> In-Reply-To: <01052815370400.04904@psa836> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J Grabiner writes >But I agree that the "may" seems to have been left there by mistake. >Declarer is not allowed to waive any other penalty on his own >initiative. That is not really correct. L53A in effect allows declarer to waive a penalty since he can just accept a LOOT, thus waiving the penalty. I know this is not relevant to the current thread, but I do not feel you can deduce that the word "may" is a mistake. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 29 22:00:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TC0JK18046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 22:00:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4TC0Bt18009 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 22:00:12 +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 f4TBxGX29167 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 07:59:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@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, 29 May 2001 07:59:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/More faulty directing) In-Reply-To: <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:42 AM 5/28/01, Herman wrote: >Brambledown wrote: > > > > On the contrary, I do not believe that the claim is irrational, merely > > careless to the point of stupidity. I do not allow it to be > 'corrected' and > > (absent L71) he gets 8 tricks. > >careless to the point of stupidity or irrational, what's the >difference. Isn't that what we've been debating for a couple of years now? "Careless to the point of stupidity" is careless. "Irrational" is irrational. The footnote to L69-71 requires us to distinguish between the careless and the irrational. If there's no difference, neither the footnote nor any of the discussion we've had about it here means anything at all. 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 May 30 00:14:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TECNN28597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 00:12:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4TECFt28560 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 00:12:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id KAA25922 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 10:11:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA12830; Tue, 29 May 2001 10:11:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:11:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105291411.KAA12830@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Nomenclature Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >David Stevenson wrote: >> Of course, we could call them Method A, B, C or the like, but >>that is not memorable. >> >> So what I should like are three names for the three methods that >>are not prejudicial, and are easy to remember. Any offers, please? > > I hope that this would be seen as non-prejudicial. How about using gender? Neutral (true weighting), female (sympathetic weighting) and male (American Way)? Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 30 01:58:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TFvHG21128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 01:57:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4TFv9t21124 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 01:57:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-67-50.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.67.50]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4TFu7D16689 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 16:56:07 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001c01c0e857$cf7194a0$32437bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Sympathetic weighting Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:54:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 29 May 2001 01:22 Subject: Re: [BLML] Sympathetic weighting ----------------- \x/ ---------------- > DWS who does much of our training but is > subject to the overall control of our CTD, Max > Bavin, suggested we should move from what > we consider the "true weighting" by about > 10%. I think all the EBU TD's I've consulted > with do the same. So if we're thinking 30% > NOs, 70% Os, then we award 40% to the NOs > and 60% to the O's - and in my case I explain > how I got to my final figure including the > adjustment. cheers john > -- +=+ This is specifically the type of area where the experience and judgement of the Directors should be especially influential. If I have any question in mind it is whether in the more sophisticated reaches of the Director's Art there might be scope for some kind of dynamism that would expand and contract the spread with relativity to the scatter of the results across the field. An obscure concept, perhaps! My concern, of course, must be with the consistency of AC applications of weighting, but - as they say - c'est une autre paire de manches. ~ 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 May 30 02:10:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TGAU421151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 02:10:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4TGAHt21146 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 02:10:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4TG7L826692; Tue, 29 May 2001 12:07:21 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:06:38 -0400 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The good news is that the Nazgul is never invited to >direct an event again. :-) It's those damn rings, you know. It's all their fault. :-) 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/AwUBOxPJtL2UW3au93vOEQIgPACfRA/j2QrhxBdwHUz3sRDunMGcXNQAn358 96nSN1FX6mS6fDK9pth+NGrI =cI0l -----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 May 30 04:18:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TIHVa07347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 04:17:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4TIHNt07343 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 04:17:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-002.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.194]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA39008 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 19:16:23 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 29 May 2001 19:17:00 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0E873.EF8619C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:16:59 +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 Pairs, Game All All 4 players are internationals - but not used to meeting one another. E/W play a Strong Club with some twists of their own. West North East South 2D(A) P 3H(A) P P 3S P 4S P P Dbl All Pass West alerted the 3H bid. South asked and was told (pre-emptive raise in either major). South Passed in tempo (agreed by all). North bid 3S holding: S. K98543 H. 6 D. K76 C. Q94 South had a balanced 16 HCP. When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W call the TD because they are not happy with the 3S bid after South's question. How do you rule? Best regards, Fearghal. -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott [SMTP:gester@lineone.net] Sent: 29 May 2001 16:55 To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Sympathetic weighting Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 29 May 2001 01:22 Subject: Re: [BLML] Sympathetic weighting ----------------- \x/ ---------------- > DWS who does much of our training but is > subject to the overall control of our CTD, Max > Bavin, suggested we should move from what > we consider the "true weighting" by about > 10%. I think all the EBU TD's I've consulted > with do the same. So if we're thinking 30% > NOs, 70% Os, then we award 40% to the NOs > and 60% to the O's - and in my case I explain > how I got to my final figure including the > adjustment. cheers john > -- +=+ This is specifically the type of area where the experience and judgement of the Directors should be especially influential. If I have any question in mind it is whether in the more sophisticated reaches of the Director's Art there might be scope for some kind of dynamism that would expand and contract the spread with relativity to the scatter of the results across the field. An obscure concept, perhaps! My concern, of course, must be with the consistency of AC applications of weighting, but - as they say - c'est une autre paire de manches. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 30 04:45:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TIjOZ10425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 04:45:25 +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 f4TIjGt10385 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 04:45:17 +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 OAA23572 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 14:44:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA08729 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 May 2001 14:44:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 14:44:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200105291844.OAA08729@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Also, very importantly, I expect to judge the general truth from > testimony given in front of some very critical people, namely the > opponents. I am not judging just from what someone says to me, but also > the reaction of the other people present. This is an important point, but I'm not sure David has appreciated the full implications. If you ask a player about the duration of a hesitation, the position a possibly-visible card, or any other fact, the other players at the table will have seen the same event and will have valid opinions. They can agree with or dispute the first player's answer. (No doubt, as TD, you will ask all four players in any case.) If, however, the question is hypothetical -- "Would you have found the right play without seeing all the hands?" -- the other players cannot possibly have a valid opinion. Even if the player is a well-known idiot, he _might_ have found the right play by accident, even if nobody else at the table believes it. (Think of the Rueful Rabbit.) And even if he's an expert, he might have had a blind spot this time. Thus there can be no useful check on the player's answer from the reaction of opponents. All you will have is the player's unsupportable and indisputable word. I'm with Eric on this one: the weight of hypothetical testimony has to be extremely low, even if not quite zero. This makes such questions not worth the time and energy of either player or TD. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 30 06:13:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TKD7c03704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 06:13:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4TKCwt03651 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 06:12:59 +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 QAA02222 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 16:20:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105292020.QAA02222@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:20:26 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 29 May 2001 at 12:06, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >>The good news is that the Nazgul is never invited to >>direct an event again. :-) > >It's those damn rings, you know. It's all their fault. :-) > You would remind me...actually, I just finished that again. "This Ring, no other, is made by the elves, Who'd pawn their own mother to grab it themselves. Ruler of creeper, mortal, and scallop, This is a sleeper that packs quite a wallop. The Power almighty rests in this Lone Ring. The Power, alrighty, for doing your Own Thing. If broken or busted, it cannot be remade If found, sent to Sorhed (the postage is prepaid)." Mocool - er, 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 May 30 06:25:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TKPRY07841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 06:25:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4TKP9t07772 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 06:25:10 +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 MAA05425; Tue, 29 May 2001 12:53:01 -0700 Message-Id: <200105291953.MAA05425@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 26 May 2001 16:42:02 BST." Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:53:00 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >First of all, it's not a penalty. I'm not suggesting that in this > >case we transfer two tricks to the non-offending side, or to apply the > >Burn Death Penalty where we automatically score -1100 against the > >offenders. I'm suggesting an adjusted score, which basically means we > >determine the score that would have actually happened if there had > >been no infraction. OK, so if there's more than one "at all probable" > >score we assign the least favorable one. (But this may not be a > >penalty, since someone who doesn't know whose turn it is to bid is > >probably not going to know how to bid or play the hand correctly > >anyway.) > > I think it *is* a penalty. For no reason at all, you are putting a > cap on the score someone could have got, when they are in a fairly > impossible position anyway. > > I do not see this Law change as necessary or desirable. We have a > method of dealing with an abuse, using 'could have known': good. You > are penalising people when we know there was no abuse. Why? Because I do not like seeing nonoffenders penalized for their opponents' violations. > We might as well use the Burn Death Penalty. I don't want the Burn Death Penalty either, but if we have to have it, we should probably make sure we apply it to the guilty instead of the innocent. It should be an unquestionable principle that we cannot let nonoffenders be harmed as a direct result of their opponents' irregularities. That's why we have Law 64C, for example. If the opponents revoke and create a stopper in dummy's entryless suit where there was no stopper, thus depriving declarer of four tricks in the suit, we give him those tricks back. It doesn't matter whether the revoker "could have known" that the revoke would have caused an extra trick loss; Law 64C doesn't ask us to determine that. It doesn't matter at all whether the infraction was inadvertent. L64C simply enforces the principle that we can't let offenders gain from their irregularities. So why should it not be the case here? One can argue that it should still be OK for the nonoffender to get a bad result due to bad luck. I don't have a problem with that, but it's not easy to divine where the line between "bad luck" and "direct result of an infraction" should be. However, I submit that if an infraction that bars partner results in the offenders getting to an excellent spot, when there was no way in practice to get to that spot by following the rules, then the harm done to the nonoffender *was* a direct result of the infraction (just as when a revoke infraction creates a stopper in a suit when there's no way to create a stopper by following the rules). If you believe this isn't so, I would like to know why. In particular, I believe that this holds when the result is some contract doubled and down a lot, when the offenders would not normally be able to get to play there because their double would be a takeout double. My earlier post tried to formulate some simple rules for how to determine when this might be the case in cases other than penalty-double cases. As Herman pointed out, my formulation is somewhat flawed. I agree that it could not be implemented without tinkering. For example, the only time I remember that I barred my partner was when I opened 1NT out of turn, and then after my partner was barred, I decided to try opening 3NT. (Not a success---partner had 2 HCP.) This would seem like a normal thing to do, but my proposed rules would treat the offenders differently depending on whether their 3NT opening was conventional or not. Not good. However, my main purpose was to get feedback on whether the "could have known" part of the law should be eliminated in some cases; the rules for what those cases are can be worked on later. As for "putting a cap on the score someone could have got, when they are in a fairly impossible position anyway"---hey, whose fault is it that they're in an impossible position? The first priority of the rules must be fairness to nonoffenders; we can talk about being fair in the penalties we give to the offenders only after we make sure we've been fair to the NOs. If this rule puts the offenders in a position where they risk getting a bad score with a bad guess, but have a limit to how good a score they can get---well, next time let them wait their turn before they bid. -- 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 May 30 07:53:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TLrED29575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 07:53:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4TLr5t29566 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 07:53:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcaui0a.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.72.10]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA18665 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 17:52:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007d01c0e889$984387e0$0200000a@cder.fda.gov> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 17:52:02 -0400 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 Summarized from today's Washington Post: **************** In the Kemper Open golf tournament this weekend, Greg Chalmers made a remark to a playing partner's caddy on Thursday. The caddy was looking to see which club Chalmers had used, and Chalmers, who was angry over his shot, said that he used a six iron and stalked off. This is a two-stroke penalty (players are not allowed to give advice about which club to use to other players or their caddies) under the rules of golf, but Chalmers did not realize it at the time. On Sunday, he realized that he might have committed an infraction when he heard a comment between two other players about a similar situation. Further, if he had failed to access a penalty against himself, then the scorecard he had signed on Thursday was incorrect. The penalty for signing an incorrect score card is disqualification. Chalmers brought the situation to the attention of an official, and, on learning that his comment was indeed a violation, disqualified himself from the tournament. This cost him $94,500 in winnings. ************** The above procedural infraction caused no damage or disruption to the game. The cost to the player was a bit more than the master points at stake in a bridge tournament. I will consider the Laws of bridge mature when the situation arises in which a player realizes he did not count the cards prior to play, summons the TD, and assesses a quarter-board penalty against himself. We have a long way to go, but basing procedural penalties on the nature of the violation, rather than the consequences of the violation, is a IMO a good place to start. Players can look at the rules, know the consequences, and act accordingly. The view that procedural penalties should be based on "damage or disruption" is IMO a step backward. A player commits an infraction, decides no harm has been done, (or his "actively ethical" opponents waive the penalty without the TD, figuring "no harm, no foul"), and the team that would have won gets screwed... I KNEW I shouldn't have put that strange looking ring on... Hirsch ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 > > The introduction to Law 90 - Procedural Penalties, > makes it clear (to me at least) that PPs should be > assessed only if damage or disruption is caused. > > On the other hand, the Nazgul school of tournament > directors would procedurally penalise any and all > irregularities made by anyone at anytime. In an > event run by a Nazgul director, most of the field > gets penalised for not counting their cards properly. > > The good news is that the Nazgul is never invited to > direct an event again. :-) > > 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 May 30 08:32:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TMWQE03945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 08:32:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4TMWIt03907 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 08:32:19 +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 f4TMWSa04116 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 15:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001101c0e88f$0be37fc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200105292020.QAA02222@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 15:30:56 -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: "Michael Farebrother" > "This Ring, no other, is made by the elves, > Who'd pawn their own mother to grab it themselves. > Ruler of creeper, mortal, and scallop, > This is a sleeper that packs quite a wallop. > The Power almighty rests in this Lone Ring. > The Power, alrighty, for doing your Own Thing. > If broken or busted, it cannot be remade > If found, sent to Sorhed (the postage is prepaid)." > What is this? It's new to me. It would be better if it scanned: This ring, and no other, is made by the elves, Who'd pawn their own mother to grab it themselves. Ruler of creeper, mortal, and scallop, This is a sleeper that packs quite a wallop. The Power almighty rests in this Ring, The Power, alrighty, for doing your Thing. If broken or busted, it can't be remade. If found, send to Sorhed (the postage is paid). 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 May 30 08:38:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TMbsQ04824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 08:37:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.northrock.bm (mx.northrock.bm [209.27.140.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4TMbkt04782 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 08:37:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [216.249.33.98] ([216.249.33.98]) by mx.northrock.bm (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4TMaqf20354 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 19:36:53 -0300 (ADT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 18:38:27 -0800 Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert From: "Jack A. Rhind" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <01C0E873.EF8619C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 5/29/01 10:16 AM, "Fearghal O'Boyle" wrote: > Pairs, Game All > All 4 players are internationals - but not used to meeting one another. > E/W play a Strong Club with some twists of their own. > > > West North East South > 2D(A) P 3H(A) P > P 3S P 4S > P P Dbl All Pass > > West alerted the 3H bid. > South asked and was told (pre-emptive raise in either major). > South Passed in tempo (agreed by all). > > North bid 3S holding: S. K98543 H. 6 D. K76 C. Q94 > South had a balanced 16 HCP. > > When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W call the TD because they are not happy with > the 3S bid after South's question. > > How do you rule? > > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > I see no reason do anything here. South had a right to ask for and receive an explanation. He then passed in tempo. North did not receive any unauthorized information. He could have asked in the pass-out seat and found out the same information. Best regards, Jack -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 30 09:20:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TNK0e18967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 09:20:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp03.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f4TNJqt18922 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 09:19:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 17415 invoked from network); 29 May 2001 23:18:34 -0000 Received: from pm12-077.wnpk.fl.iag.net (HELO claire) ([207.30.73.77]) (envelope-sender ) by smtp03.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 29 May 2001 23:18:34 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010529191643.006bbbf8@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:16:48 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:38 PM 5/29/01 -0800, you wrote: >On 5/29/01 10:16 AM, "Fearghal O'Boyle" wrote: > >> Pairs, Game All >> All 4 players are internationals - but not used to meeting one another. >> E/W play a Strong Club with some twists of their own. >> >> >> West North East South >> 2D(A) P 3H(A) P >> P 3S P 4S >> P P Dbl All Pass >> >> West alerted the 3H bid. >> South asked and was told (pre-emptive raise in either major). >> South Passed in tempo (agreed by all). >> >> North bid 3S holding: S. K98543 H. 6 D. K76 C. Q94 >> South had a balanced 16 HCP. >> >> When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W call the TD because they are not happy with >> the 3S bid after South's question. >> >> How do you rule? >> >> >> Best regards, >> Fearghal. >> >I see no reason do anything here. South had a right to ask for and receive >an explanation. He then passed in tempo. North did not receive any >unauthorized information. He could have asked in the pass-out seat and found >out the same information. > The knowledge that South asked for the meaning is UI. And it is IMO far far more common that you ask when you have cards compare to a balanced 10 ptr vs a passed pd. 3wk preempt in either must clearly be the weakest possible meaning for the 3Heart bid and South is still passing but showed great interest in the meaning of it with a question when he followed thru with a pass anyway. I would rule it back to 3He whatever it scores as the cards are. It could be that he didnt have any methods to safely enter the bidding at that level and the question came to be the safe method to get the info across that i have some pts but dont know how to bid it. Robert -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 30 09:21:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4TNLJu19438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 09:21:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4TNLBt19399 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 09:21:12 +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 f4TNLOa12943 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 16:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004601c0e895$e088b280$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010528145949.008532b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010528170558.00b0e180@127.0.0.1> <01052815370400.04904@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:12:40 -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: "David Stevenson" > David J Grabiner writes > > >But I agree that the "may" seems to have been left there by mistake. > >Declarer is not allowed to waive any other penalty on his own > >initiative. > > That is not really correct. L53A in effect allows declarer to waive a > penalty since he can just accept a LOOT, thus waiving the penalty. I > know this is not relevant to the current thread, but I do not feel you > can deduce that the word "may" is a mistake. > Players do not have the right to waive a penalty on their own initiative (L10A). They can do so only with the TD's blessing. Players can impose a penalty for a LOOT (take it back), but when a LOOT is accepted it becomes a legal play as if there had been no LOOT, and there is no penalty to waive. 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 May 30 10:00:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4U00FL24984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:00:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4U005t24979 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:00:05 +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 QAA09589; Tue, 29 May 2001 16:59:08 -0700 Message-Id: <200105292359.QAA09589@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 29 May 2001 19:16:48 EDT." <3.0.32.20010529191643.006bbbf8@pop3.iag.net> Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:59:07 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robert Nordgren wrote: > At 06:38 PM 5/29/01 -0800, you wrote: > >On 5/29/01 10:16 AM, "Fearghal O'Boyle" wrote: > > > >> Pairs, Game All > >> All 4 players are internationals - but not used to meeting one another. > >> E/W play a Strong Club with some twists of their own. > >> > >> > >> West North East South > >> 2D(A) P 3H(A) P > >> P 3S P 4S > >> P P Dbl All Pass > >> > >> West alerted the 3H bid. > >> South asked and was told (pre-emptive raise in either major). > >> South Passed in tempo (agreed by all). > >> > >> North bid 3S holding: S. K98543 H. 6 D. K76 C. Q94 > >> South had a balanced 16 HCP. > >> > >> When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W call the TD because they are not happy > with > >> the 3S bid after South's question. > >> > >> How do you rule? > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Fearghal. > >> > >I see no reason do anything here. South had a right to ask for and receive > >an explanation. He then passed in tempo. North did not receive any > >unauthorized information. He could have asked in the pass-out seat and found > >out the same information. > > The knowledge that South asked for the meaning is UI. And it is IMO far far > more common that you ask when you have cards compare to a balanced 10 ptr > vs a passed pd. Perhaps this is so. If so, then by the same token, if South doesn't ask the meaning of 3H, then North has the UI that South is more likely to have a balanced 10-count than to have cards. This UI suggests that pass is more likely to work out than 3S; therefore, North must bid 3S. Thus, after East bids 3H, North will have his options restricted when South asks a question, and North will have his options restricted when South doesn't ask a question. Therefore, after East bids 3H, I believe it's proper for the Director to ask North to leave the table, and then the Director can bid North's cards for him. Lovely. -- 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 May 30 10:58:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4U0vYJ02609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:57:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com (juicer34.bigpond.com [139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4U0vOt02553 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:57:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.78]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GE4IV800.155 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 11:01:56 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-52.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.52]) by bwmam04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9d 8329/2099144); 30 May 2001 11:01:55 Message-ID: <01d801c0e8a2$f99659a0$34e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:53:42 +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 Feargal O'Boyle wrote: >Pairs, Game All >All 4 players are internationals - but not used to meeting one >another. >E/W play a Strong Club with some twists of their own. > >West North East South >2D(A) P 3H(A) P >P 3S P 4S >P P Dbl All Pass > >West alerted the 3H bid. >South asked and was told (pre-emptive raise in either major). >South Passed in tempo (agreed by all). > >North bid 3S holding: S. K98543 H. 6 D. K76 C. Q94 >South had a balanced 16 HCP. > >When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W call the TD because they are >not happy with the 3S bid after South's question. > >How do you rule? Not easy. It depends somewhat upon whether one can ascertain reliably whether South always asks the meaning of alerted bids. In Sydney, where internationals virtually never ask about the meaning of such bids (partly because the meaning of 3H would be routine and obvious to international players in Sydney), I would tend to assume that the question creates UI. And thus I would be inclined to adjust the score to 3H undoubled. Note that this ruling seems right to me when all four players are internationals. With inexperienced players, the inferences about whether the question created UI would be less clear. Also, in regions where the questioning habits of internationals are not as standardised as Sydney, the ruling might be different. Peter Gill Sydney, Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 30 11:50:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4U1odX14411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 11:50:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4U1oTt14401 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 11:50:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-97-92.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.97.92]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4U1nRD21890 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 02:49:27 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000601c0e8aa$d10628a0$5c61063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:27:24 +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 5.00.2615.200 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, May 29, 2001 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 > > The introduction to Law 90 - Procedural Penalties, > makes it clear (to me at least) that PPs should be > assessed only if damage or disruption is caused. > +=+ Or if correct procedure is violated. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 30 12:06:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4U25sp14890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 12:05:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4U25gt14881 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 12:05:43 +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 WAA07606 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 22:13:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105300213.WAA07606@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <01C0E873.EF8619C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> References: <01C0E873.EF8619C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:13:14 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 29 May 2001 at 19:16, "Fearghal O'Boyle" wrote: >Pairs, Game All >All 4 players are internationals - but not used to meeting one another. >E/W play a Strong Club with some twists of their own. > > >West North East South >2D(A) P 3H(A) P >P 3S P 4S >P P Dbl All Pass > >West alerted the 3H bid. >South asked and was told (pre-emptive raise in either major). >South Passed in tempo (agreed by all). > I'm assuming 2D was Multi of some sort. What strong options were contained in it? >North bid 3S holding: S. K98543 H. 6 D. K76 C. Q94 >South had a balanced 16 HCP. > >When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W call the TD because they are not happy with >the 3S bid after South's question. > >How do you rule? > In the ACBL, this is easy. Because we are expected to ask after Alerted bids (When in doubt, ASK, do not ASSUME! it says in our Alert Procedure), and because the Multi is Mid-Chart, therefore both not often met and requiring a Pre-Alert, I would be more likely to rule that UI was transmitted if South didn't ask than if he did. Result stands. I don't know the Irish rules - and the CBAI site is good for players, but I can't find any regulations on it. In UK, where Multi is more expected, and where standard responses to it are more known, and where the regulations discourage asking and passing (and for all of those reasons, doing so is much more likely to pass usable, and ruleable UI), I would expect the ruling to be 3H-whatever (but what do I know? I'm just guessing). As with all procedural decisions, it's very NCBO-dependent. Unfortunately for South, next time this auction comes up, 2D will be Flannery. Or a transfer preempt in Spades. And he won't ask because he got ruled against last time. And go for his life. 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 May 30 12:20:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4U2Jsi15363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 12:19:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4U2Jkt15355 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 12:19:47 +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 WAA07909 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 22:27:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105300227.WAA07909@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200105292359.QAA09589@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200105292359.QAA09589@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:27:18 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 29 May 2001 at 16:59, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Robert Nordgren wrote: > > [South asks about 2D(A)-p-3H(preemptive in either major), passes, and then gets into trouble after North decides to balance] >> >> When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W call the TD because they are not happy >> with >> >> the 3S bid after South's question. >> >> >> >> How do you rule? >> >> >> >> The knowledge that South asked for the meaning is UI. And it is IMO far far >> more common that you ask when you have cards compare to a balanced 10 ptr >> vs a passed pd. > >Perhaps this is so. If so, then by the same token, if South doesn't >ask the meaning of 3H, then North has the UI that South is more likely >to have a balanced 10-count than to have cards. This UI suggests that >pass is more likely to work out than 3S; therefore, North must bid 3S. > >Thus, after East bids 3H, North will have his options restricted when >South asks a question, and North will have his options restricted when >South doesn't ask a question. Therefore, after East bids 3H, I >believe it's proper for the Director to ask North to leave the table, >and then the Director can bid North's cards for him. > >Lovely. It's a UKish attitude (though I don't think Robert is in the UK, at least not now). What's even better is that at the next table South is going to hear the exact same auction, Alerted in exactly the same way; this time he's going to not ask and double, because he got ruled against last time, and it'll continue: XX-p-p-3S;p-p-X...because his opponents this time are Eric Landau and me, and 3H was GF, strong, with hearts, and 2D, while natural, doesn't deny a heart suit or defensive strength... But we've been over the different philosophies before. As I said before, my ruling would depend on what information was available to South before the round starts (either by Pre-Alert or "sequences that may require defence"), and how common this particular sequence is in the area (around here, Multi 2D is practically non-existent, due to regulatory restrictions). 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 May 30 14:24:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4U4MR202797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:22:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4U4MKt02763 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:22:20 +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 OAA18991 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:26:56 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:12:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:19:16 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 30/05/2001 02:17:06 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: [big snip] >As Herman pointed out, my formulation is >somewhat flawed. I agree that it could >not be implemented without tinkering. For >example, the only time I remember that I >barred my partner was when I opened 1NT out >of turn, and then after my partner was >barred, I decided to try opening 3NT. (Not >a success---partner had 2 HCP.) This would >seem like a normal thing to do, but my >proposed rules would treat the offenders >differently depending on whether their 3NT >opening was conventional or not. Not good. >However, my main purpose was to get feedback >on whether the "could have known" part of the >law should be eliminated in some cases; the >rules for what those cases are can be worked >on later. [big snip] I disagree with Adam's philosophy. All would agree that if a player accidentally bars partner, guesses to bid 3NT, then makes the 20 point contract with three finesses and a 3-3 break, then the resulting top is the *rub of the green*. I see no philosophical difference between a guess to bid 3NT, and a guess to make a penalty double - scoring 1100 - even if a penalty double would be systemically takeout opposite a non-barred partner. There is no law against the NOS having *bad luck* when one of the OS is barred. Indeed, L72A5 states that the OS are entitled to be lucky. If Adam is proposing that the Laws should be changed so that bad things never happen to good people, then I suggest that he remembers the words of The Preacher: "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." Ecclesiastes 9:11 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 May 30 15:37:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4U5b8W12359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:37:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4U5awt12352 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:36:59 +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 f4U5b9a24313 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 22:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00c801c0e8ca$5d9bbfe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200105291844.OAA08729@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:27:23 -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 From: "Steve Willner" > > From: David Stevenson > > Also, very importantly, I expect to judge the general truth from > > testimony given in front of some very critical people, namely the > > opponents. I am not judging just from what someone says to me, but also > > the reaction of the other people present. > > This is an important point, but I'm not sure David has appreciated > the full implications. > > If you ask a player about the duration of a hesitation, the position a > possibly-visible card, or any other fact, the other players at the > table will have seen the same event and will have valid opinions. They > can agree with or dispute the first player's answer. (No doubt, as TD, > you will ask all four players in any case.) > > If, however, the question is hypothetical -- "Would you have found the > right play without seeing all the hands?" -- the other players cannot > possibly have a valid opinion. Even if the player is a well-known > idiot, he _might_ have found the right play by accident, even if nobody > else at the table believes it. (Think of the Rueful Rabbit.) And even > if he's an expert, he might have had a blind spot this time. Thus > there can be no useful check on the player's answer from the reaction > of opponents. All you will have is the player's unsupportable and > indisputable word. > > I'm with Eric on this one: the weight of hypothetical testimony has to > be extremely low, even if not quite zero. This makes such questions > not worth the time and energy of either player or TD. Yes. We don't ask a player what s/he would have done absent UI, and we don't ask whether s/he knew if s/he "could have known." The principle is well-established in the Laws and should apply to all situations in which an answer cannot be corroborated. 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 May 30 15:47:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4U5l7712644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:47:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4U5l0t12638 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:47:01 +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 f4U5lCa26207 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 22:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d101c0e8cb$c4a61e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:44:27 -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: "Jack A. Rhind" > "Fearghal O'Boyle" wrote: > > > Pairs, Game All > > All 4 players are internationals - but not used to meeting one another. > > E/W play a Strong Club with some twists of their own. > > > > > > West North East South > > 2D(A) P 3H(A) P > > P 3S P 4S > > P P Dbl All Pass > > > > West alerted the 3H bid. > > South asked and was told (pre-emptive raise in either major). > > South Passed in tempo (agreed by all). > > > > North bid 3S holding: S. K98543 H. 6 D. K76 C. Q94 > > South had a balanced 16 HCP. > > > > When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W call the TD because they are not happy with > > the 3S bid after South's question. > > > > How do you rule? > > > I see no reason do anything here. South had a right to ask for and receive > an explanation. He then passed in tempo. North did not receive any > unauthorized information. He could have asked in the pass-out seat and found > out the same information. UI can be received "through questions asked or not asked" (L73B1). Individual bids should not be questioned, per L20F1, and South should have asked for an explanation of the auction (not a serious irregularity in this case). If South asks for an explanation of the auction every time it isn't understood, as should be done, either with 0 or 16 HCP, then there would be no question of UI. If South inquires selectively, then that certainly is UI if s/he passes after getting an answer. What answer would have evoked some other action? 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 May 30 16:45:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4U6iCC25096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:44:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin6.bigpond.com (juicer03.bigpond.com [139.134.6.79]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4U6i1t25043 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:44:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.78]) by mailin6.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GE4YWV00.FTA for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:48:31 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-51.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.51]) by bwmam04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9d 8329/2451660); 30 May 2001 16:48:31 Message-ID: <00a901c0e8d3$64abd460$33e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:40:17 +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 Hirsch Davis wrote: >Summarized from today's Washington Post: > >**************** >In the Kemper Open golf tournament this weekend, Greg Chalmers >made a remark to a playing partner's caddy on Thursday. The caddy was looking to see which club Chalmers had used, and Chalmers, who was angry over his shot, said that he used a six iron and stalked off. This is a two-stroke penalty (players are not allowed to give advice about which club to use to other players or their caddies) under the rules of golf, but Chalmers did not realize it at the time. On Sunday, he realized that he might have committed an infraction when he heard a comment between two other players about a similar situation. Further, if he had failed to access a penalty against himself, then the scorecard he had signed on Thursday was incorrect. The penalty for signing an incorrect score card is disqualification. Chalmers brought the situation to the attention of an official, and, on learning that his comment was indeed a violation, disqualified himself from the tournament. This cost him $94,500 in winnings. >************** > >The above procedural infraction caused no damage or disruption to >the game. The cost to the player was a bit more than the master >points at stake in a bridge tournament. As Greg Chalmers is an Aussie, the incident has received a lot of coverage here. It seems to be a case of UI. In passing, the reason Greg "stalked off" the course was that the round was interrupted by a weather disruption. Because Greg's left-handed, it's difficult for rival players to see which club he's just used, so he sometimes tried to help out by saying "I hit a six iron" or whatever. Chalmers agrees that rule 8-1 (golf's UI rule, about a player not giving advice nor asking for advice from a competitor or his caddy) is necessary, in order to stop players who are friendly from sharing information (i.e no UI to other players please). Note that in a Teams game, AI may be shared by partners. The Herald explains that "caddies regularly try to see which club another player hits at par-three holes. That is within the rules, as long as they don't ask. Thus it seems that Greg did disrupt the game by passing UI to a competitor's caddy. The Herald says that "Chalmers was concerned about whether his action would cause his fellow competitor to be disqualified, which wasn't the case." Yes I know, we're all tired of comparisons with other sports, but I rather like the symmetry of "AI to partner, UI to opponents" at golf relative to bridge. 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 May 30 17:03:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4U6nFp26183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:49:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin8.bigpond.com (juicer39.bigpond.com [139.134.6.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4U6mYt26091 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:48:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.78]) by mailin8.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GE4Z4E00.J7W for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:53:02 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-51.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.51]) by bwmam04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9d 8329/2456174); 30 May 2001 16:53:02 Message-ID: <00b001c0e8d4$05f18900$33e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:44:48 +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 Marv French wrote: >Individual bids should not be questioned, per L20F1, and South >should have asked for an explanation of the auction (not a serious >irregularity in this case). If South asks for an explanation of the >auction every time it isn't understood, as should be done, either "as should be done" in North America, but not necessarily elsewhere. And definitely not in a place where Relay Systems are common. Peter Gill, Sydney, Australia. >with 0 or 16 HCP, then there would be no question of UI. If South >inquires selectively, then that certainly is UI if s/he passes after >getting an answer. What answer would have evoked some other >action? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 30 17:32:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4U7W5c09651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:32:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.bmc.uu.se (hermes.bmc.uu.se [130.238.39.159]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4U7Vst09599 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:31:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from terveen (terveen.ytbioteknik.uu.se [130.238.44.17]) by hermes.bmc.uu.se (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-62649U1500L1000S0V35) with SMTP id se for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 09:32:23 +0200 Message-ID: <003501c0e8db$41f60d20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 09:36:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f4U7Vvt09620 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > Robert Nordgren wrote: > > > At 06:38 PM 5/29/01 -0800, you wrote: > > >On 5/29/01 10:16 AM, "Fearghal O'Boyle" wrote: > > > > > >> Pairs, Game All > > >> All 4 players are internationals - but not used to meeting one another. > > >> E/W play a Strong Club with some twists of their own. > > >> > > >> > > >> West North East South > > >> 2D(A) P 3H(A) P > > >> P 3S P 4S > > >> P P Dbl All Pass > > >> > > >> West alerted the 3H bid. > > >> South asked and was told (pre-emptive raise in either major). > > >> South Passed in tempo (agreed by all). > > >> > > >> North bid 3S holding: S. K98543 H. 6 D. K76 C. Q94 > > >> South had a balanced 16 HCP. > > >> > > >> When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W call the TD because they are not happy > > with > > >> the 3S bid after South's question. > > >> > > >> How do you rule? > > >> > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> Fearghal. > > >> > > >I see no reason do anything here. South had a right to ask for and receive > > >an explanation. He then passed in tempo. North did not receive any > > >unauthorized information. He could have asked in the pass-out seat and found > > >out the same information. > > > > The knowledge that South asked for the meaning is UI. And it is IMO far far > > more common that you ask when you have cards compare to a balanced 10 ptr > > vs a passed pd. > > Perhaps this is so. If so, then by the same token, if South doesn't > ask the meaning of 3H, then North has the UI that South is more likely > to have a balanced 10-count than to have cards. This UI suggests that > pass is more likely to work out than 3S; therefore, North must bid 3S. > > Thus, after East bids 3H, North will have his options restricted when > South asks a question, and North will have his options restricted when > South doesn't ask a question. Therefore, after East bids 3H, I > believe it's proper for the Director to ask North to leave the table, > and then the Director can bid North's cards for him. > > Lovely. > -- 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/ There is a simple solution to this case. When opponents alert (and even when their bidding is not alerted but could reasonably have several meanings) ask about the meaning of the bid regardless of whether you're interested in bidding or not. Then the actual case: Assuming that 2D was Multi, it seems reasonable that North would have acted immediately if he would have had a decent hand. In the balancing position, I don't see an alternative to bidding 3S in a pairs competition with a singleton in their suit and a six card spade suit. Therefore, I would let the result stand. Rik ter Veen -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 30 22:06:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UC5ML01465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 22:05:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UC4rt01387 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 22:04:55 +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 OAA22414; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:00:21 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA08219; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:03:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010530140752.0085a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:07:52 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200105291953.MAA05425@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:53 29/05/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >It should be an unquestionable principle that we cannot let >nonoffenders be harmed as a direct result of their opponents' >irregularities. AG : I find this dangerous, as it goes against L12B. >One can argue that it should still be OK for the nonoffender to get a >bad result due to bad luck. I don't have a problem with that, but >it's not easy to divine where the line between "bad luck" and "direct >result of an infraction" should be. AG : it can be both. Say West let fall an King, open-faced, during the bidding. NS end in 3NT, and as it happens, the (forced) lead of the King is the best one for EW. The damage to NS is direct consequence of the infraction, ie all other things being equal, it would not have happened absent the infraction, and the causality is clearly traceable. And it's bad luck that the Laws forced the bad result (eg if NS had not called the TD for any reason, they would have been better off). However, if the TD were to change the result because of that, he would be going seriously against both letter and spirit of L12B. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 30 23:28:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UDSK611027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 23:28:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UDSBt11019 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 23:28:12 +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 PAA19030; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:27:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA14335; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:27:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010530153110.007f4100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:31:10 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] maths and 'could have known', was : double out of turn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, After looking in detail at the long 'double out of turn' thread, I feel it could be a good thing if we endeavoured to give an objective definition of 'likely to profit'. Mathematics could give us the answer. First the definition, then the applications, as usual. New (suggested) formulation of L23 or its guide to interpretation : - when an irregularity etc. , and - if the average expectancy of the player's score is higher after the forced pass than without the infraction, then ... This should take into account the case where the player needs to shoot for a spectacular score (say, he seems to be trailing in a short playoff), and the expectancy of this becomes higher. Applications : 1) East holds AKJxx / x / KQJx / xxx, and opens 1S OOT. South, the original dealer, disallows the bid and opens a 12-14 NT. Two passes follow. Now, East can basically do four things : he can pass, double, bid 2S or gamble with 4S. None of those options (not even the double, because of lead penalties) will make his expectancy of score higher than if he had let South open normally, and had reopened with whatever is his system. Do not apply L23, even if he seems to profit from the infraction (eg, he passes, 1NT goes down, everybody is in some number of spades giong down), because such strokes of good fortune were included in the calculation of the expectancy, and didn't make it bypass its 'without-the-infraction' level. 2) East holds the same hand. South opens 2S (weak). East calls OOT (not necessarily a double, BTW). South doesn't accept the call, West has to pass, North passes. Now East doubles. His expectancy of score is higher than it was before the COOT (by a large amount if he plays TO, by a smaller amount if he plays penalties, because he averted a 3H bid by West). Apply L23. 3) East, holding the same hand, *opens* OOT with 1S or whatever. South doesn't accept, then opens a weak 2S. Two passes. Now East doubles. Do *not* apply L23. When East committed the infraction, it did *not* raise his average expectancy of score, because there was only a slight probability that he would be in a position to make a penalty double. The fact that he eventually was, because South happened to have nearly all remaining spades, is only sheer luck, like the 1NT-p-p-p case in part 1. That's the sense of the words 'at the moment of the infraction'. At that moment, he could *not* have known. 4) As in 2, but East holds one less spade and one more diamond. If he bids 3D, allow him to do so : clearly there are many cases where the forced pass will disadvantage him, and only a few where it would profit him. Fore the same reason, let him bid 3NT, or pass, if he wishes. As for the double ... well, it's marginal. The TD (and, to be sure, the AC) will have to balance profits with losses from the action. Same in the original case of the thread. Do you feel it could be used, if not as a rewording, at least as a guide to the use of L23 ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 30 23:41:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UDffF15091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 23:41:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UDfXt15043 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 23:41:34 +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 PAA21454; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:40:35 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA24712; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:40:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010530154436.00854c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:44:36 +0200 To: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen), "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <003501c0e8db$41f60d20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:36 30/05/01 +0200, Rik Terveen wrote: > >There is a simple solution to this case. When opponents alert (and even when their bidding is not alerted but could reasonably have several meanings) ask about the meaning of the bid regardless of whether you're interested in bidding or not. AG : of course ! But South didn't practice this (or at least, we may assume it), and the TD must do something. Also, who will decide whether South does practice it ? I feel that these cases should be penalized only when they form a consistent pattern, ie once South asked and North reopenned light, and once he didn't and North didn't. As for the case, I don't think East's question transmitted a huge amount of UI. There are so many possible cases ! For example : 2D is natural, 10-15 HCP. 3H is preemptive. Or 2D is artificial GF, 3H shows HA. Or 2D is weak, 3H is fit-jump. Clearly, the hands with which East will now do somethig are far apart (in the first case, he will bid if strong and short in hearts, in the second he will seldom bid, except he could double with long hearts, in the second he will be prone to bid if short in D). Most probably, South will ask in both cases. So, what is the UI ? That he is either long or short in hearts ? Either long or short in diamonds ? Marginal, at best ... Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 30 23:57:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UDv3A20545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 23:57:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UDust20498 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 23:56:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-155.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.155]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D8E05471E for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:55:59 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:52:22 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <003501c0e8db$41f60d20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Rik Terveen (Wed 30 May 2001 08:37) writes: > There is a simple solution to this case. When opponents alert (and > even when their bidding is not alerted but could reasonably have > several meanings) ask about the meaning of the bid regardless of > whether you're interested in bidding or not. You can't do this in EBULand. The EBU Orange Book (OB 3.4.1) specifies that "The right to ask questions is not a licence to do so without consequence: If you ask about an unalerted call and then pass, you have shown an interest which may influence your partner. Asking about an alerted call and then bidding reduces this possibility, but in either case if your partner acts in a way that suggests he has taken advantage of your question, then UI may be deemed to have been given. ... Note: If at your turn to call, you do not need to have a call explained, it is in your interest to defer all questions until either you are about to make the opening lead or your partner's lead is face-down on the table." Also, "at the start of a round, you have a duty to find out your opponents' Basic System ..." (OB 3.1.2) which would be taken to include knowing whether 2D was Multi. It is well understood even at club level here that "ask and pass" creates UI - whether the pass is in tempo or not is irrelevant if it follows a question (or obviously looking at opponents' CC). Pass by North is IMO now a clear cut LA for North on the hand given and I would be very surprised if a TD here did not routinely adjust to 3H minus whatever. 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 May 31 00:09:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UE9FP24243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 00:09:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4UE94t24193 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 00:09:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f4UE8Q311820 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:08:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200105301408.f4UE8Q311820@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:08:25 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010529191643.006bbbf8@pop3.iag.net> from "Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren" at May 29, 2001 07:16:48 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] 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 Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren writes: > > At 06:38 PM 5/29/01 -0800, you wrote: > >On 5/29/01 10:16 AM, "Fearghal O'Boyle" wrote: > > > >> Pairs, Game All > >> All 4 players are internationals - but not used to meeting one another. > >> E/W play a Strong Club with some twists of their own. > >> > >> > >> West North East South > >> 2D(A) P 3H(A) P > >> P 3S P 4S > >> P P Dbl All Pass > >> > >> West alerted the 3H bid. > >> South asked and was told (pre-emptive raise in either major). > >> South Passed in tempo (agreed by all). > >> > >> North bid 3S holding: S. K98543 H. 6 D. K76 C. Q94 > >> South had a balanced 16 HCP. > >> > >> When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W call the TD because they are not > >> happy with the 3S bid after South's question. > >> > >> How do you rule? > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Fearghal. > >> > >I see no reason do anything here. South had a right to ask for and receive > >an explanation. He then passed in tempo. North did not receive any > >unauthorized information. He could have asked in the pass-out seat and found > >out the same information. > > > > > The knowledge that South asked for the meaning is UI. And it is IMO far far > more common that you ask when you have cards compare to a balanced 10 ptr > vs a passed pd. Two points. 1. That may be your experience. It isn't mine. Nor I suspect any North American player. THis isn't a common auction. I'd ask and would expect the vast majority (upwards of 90% I suspect) of the players I know to ask. 2. Your *opinion* doesn't matter here. Mine doesn't either. I would rule no UI trasmitted either by the question or by tempo. Indeed, rulings such as this *guarantee* that questions transmit UI. > > 3wk preempt in either must clearly be the weakest possible meaning for the > 3Heart bid and South is still passing but showed great interest in the > meaning of it with a question when he followed thru with a pass anyway. That's poorly though out. 3H doesn't *have* to mean anything of the sort. It's an alerted jump in response to an alerted opening bid. I can think of a few thousand possible meanings. > I would rule it back to 3He whatever it scores as the cards are. It could > be that he didnt have any methods to safely enter the bidding at that level > and the question came to be the safe method to get the info across that i > have some pts but dont know how to bid it. You just accused North of cheating. It's *far* more likely that he simply wanted to know the meaning of the call. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 00:37:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UEW7E28926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 00:32:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4UEVwt28920 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 00:32:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f4UEVIg12746 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:31:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200105301431.f4UEVIg12746@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:31:17 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Brambledown" at May 30, 2001 02:52:22 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] 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 Brambledown writes: > > > Rik Terveen (Wed 30 May 2001 08:37) writes: > > There is a simple solution to this case. When opponents alert (and > > even when their bidding is not alerted but could reasonably have > > several meanings) ask about the meaning of the bid regardless of > > whether you're interested in bidding or not. > > You can't do this in EBULand. > > The EBU Orange Book (OB 3.4.1) specifies that "The right to ask questions is > not a licence to do so without consequence: If you ask about an unalerted > call and then pass, you have shown an interest which may influence your > partner. And that's obvious nonsense if you always ask. What's more, I can provide you with an AC ruling where a) The EBU's strongest player (Tony Forrester) advocates the "always ask" policy. (along with Bobby Goldman, Jens Auken with Tommy Sandsmark as the scribe.) b) the editor of the appeals report (Tony Sowter I believe) wrote "This ruling illustrates the dangerers of individual NCBOs adopting regulations that are inconsistent with the international view." In case it's not obvious, this ruling came from a hand where a player asked a question, passed and his partner took a call that the opposition felt was not obvious. (The AC strongly disagreed with this assertion, finding the chosen call routine and not getting into the issue of logical alternatives) The director disagreed. So did the AC. Quoting now: "There was no hesitation, and you are allowed to ask when it is your turn to bid." In fact the ruling was considered clear enough that the deposit was retained. > Asking about an alerted call and then bidding reduces this > possibility, but in either case if your partner acts in a way that suggests > he has taken advantage of your question, then UI may be deemed to have been > given. ... > Note: If at your turn to call, you do not need to have a call explained, it > is in your interest to defer all questions until either you are about to > make the opening lead or your partner's lead is face-down on the table." > > Also, "at the start of a round, you have a duty to find out your opponents' > Basic System ..." (OB 3.1.2) which would be taken to include knowing whether > 2D was Multi. RIght. And everybody plays the same follow-ups. If so, why the alert? (I know. There's always a compromise in designing them. You either end up with alerting rules that nobody understands or some alerts that pass no signal.) > It is well understood even at club level here that "ask and pass" creates > UI - whether the pass is in tempo or not is irrelevant if it follows a > question (or obviously looking at opponents' CC). But in this case you *always* pass UI. By not asking you explicitly limnit your hand. > Pass by North is IMO now a clear cut LA for North on the hand given I agree for most players. > and I would be very surprised if a TD here did not routinely adjust > to 3H minus whatever. And they'd be right to in EBU-land. Wrong any place else. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 00:42:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UEdPQ29092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 00:39:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UEdDt29077 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 00:39:14 +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 155773-0008za-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:38:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:29:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" References: <3.0.6.32.20010528145949.008532b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010528170558.00b0e180@127.0.0.1> <01052815370400.04904@psa836> <004601c0e895$e088b280$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004601c0e895$e088b280$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" >> David J Grabiner writes >> >> >But I agree that the "may" seems to have been left there by mistake. >> >Declarer is not allowed to waive any other penalty on his own >> >initiative. >> >> That is not really correct. L53A in effect allows declarer to waive a >> penalty since he can just accept a LOOT, thus waiving the penalty. I >> know this is not relevant to the current thread, but I do not feel you >> can deduce that the word "may" is a mistake. >> >Players do not have the right to waive a penalty on their own initiative >(L10A). They can do so only with the TD's blessing. Players can impose a >penalty for a LOOT (take it back), but when a LOOT is accepted it becomes >a legal play as if there had been no LOOT, and there is no penalty to >waive. That's just semantics. In effect, they have waived a penalty: if that is acceptable to the Law-makers in that case, you cannot deduce that it is unacceptable to the law-makers in another case. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 00:42:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UEdL229089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 00:39:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UEdAt29074 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 00:39:12 +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 155770-0008ze-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:38:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:27:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: <200105291953.MAA05425@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200105291953.MAA05425@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 >One can argue that it should still be OK for the nonoffender to get a >bad result due to bad luck. I don't have a problem with that, but >it's not easy to divine where the line between "bad luck" and "direct >result of an infraction" should be. However, I submit that if an >infraction that bars partner results in the offenders getting to an >excellent spot, when there was no way in practice to get to that spot >by following the rules, then the harm done to the nonoffender *was* a >direct result of the infraction (just as when a revoke infraction >creates a stopper in a suit when there's no way to create a stopper by >following the rules). If you believe this isn't so, I would like to >know why. At the moment in many many situations bridge is played after an infraction. What you are suggesting is that the offenders should never gain therefrom. This has two main disadvantages, one it seems near-impossible to me to enforce, and two, it seems to lose the point of continuing to play. Let us take an example: a player leads out of turn. Declarer makes a choice, and *whatever* he chooses, this might mean the offenders gain. The reason this is generally considered acceptable [and is to me] is because the non-offenders gain on balance. Now, it would be *very* difficult to always adjust to make sure the offenders never gain - think of every ruling you do, you would have to look at every one. Furthermore, I think it would ruin the game for the offenders. And, because the non-offenders gain on balance, I think this is an unnecessary change in the Laws. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 00:42:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UEdP029091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 00:39:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UEdAt29073 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 00:39:12 +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 155770-0008zd-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:38:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:14:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing References: <200105291844.OAA08729@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200105291844.OAA08729@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 >> Also, very importantly, I expect to judge the general truth from >> testimony given in front of some very critical people, namely the >> opponents. I am not judging just from what someone says to me, but also >> the reaction of the other people present. > >This is an important point, but I'm not sure David has appreciated >the full implications. > >If you ask a player about the duration of a hesitation, the position a >possibly-visible card, or any other fact, the other players at the >table will have seen the same event and will have valid opinions. They >can agree with or dispute the first player's answer. (No doubt, as TD, >you will ask all four players in any case.) > >If, however, the question is hypothetical -- "Would you have found the >right play without seeing all the hands?" -- the other players cannot >possibly have a valid opinion. Even if the player is a well-known >idiot, he _might_ have found the right play by accident, even if nobody >else at the table believes it. (Think of the Rueful Rabbit.) And even >if he's an expert, he might have had a blind spot this time. Thus >there can be no useful check on the player's answer from the reaction >of opponents. All you will have is the player's unsupportable and >indisputable word. My view is unshaken: I have more faith in an answer to a hypothetical question when it is given in front of the other players. It is not unheard-of, for example, for a player to say "I might have passed" and his partner to say "How could you: it's forcing!" The other reason for asking hypothetical questions, as Directors do at the end of the hand, is to find out generally what damage there has been. I do not see why the Directors are expected to be *better* players than the players, so they can miss things. If you ask what might have happened, and get a general discussion from both sides, that is helpful, and gets useful information. I remember a mistake I made when acting as a TD consultant at Brighton some years back. The TD had gone to the table where 2S had gone two off, found out what the infraction was alleged to be, and came to me. We decided there was an infraction, the lead would be different [pre- L12C3 days] and so we adjusted to 2S making. Fortunately the players were awake when my colleague ruled: they told him not to be silly, and to try again. So we tried again! We had missed a completely routine defence, and the adjusted score of 2S -1 was acceptable to both sides. My colleague could have avoided us making prats of ourselves, however, if he had asked "What would have happened if ..." since the players were all in agreement! Hypothetical questions do have a use, but their use is considerably diminished if they are made at the wrong time [during the hand] and in the wrong place [away from the other players]. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 01:08:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UF88G29634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 01:08:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UF7xt29628 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 01:08:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA25882; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:03:29 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA02609; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:07:01 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010530171101.008539d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:11:01 +0200 To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: References: <003501c0e8db$41f60d20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:52 30/05/01 +0100, Brambledown wrote: >Note: If at your turn to call, you do not need to have a call explained, it >is in your interest to defer all questions until either you are about to >make the opening lead or your partner's lead is face-down on the table." AG : note : if I don't know what the call means, how could I know whether I wish to have it explained ? I know of people who play 2D-3H as P/C ; others play it preemptive in H. And this isn't the sort of things I would routinely look at when they sit down. Or, to take another example, West opens 1C, and East answers 3H. In Belgium, it could be : a) preempt b) transfer preempt c) splinter d) fit-jump and, if 1C were alerted, it could be nearly anything. Do you think it is possible that I convey precise UI by asking ? Do you think that the mere fact that one of those cases do interest me at least a little is precious information to partner ? I could have either : AKJx xx KQxx Axx (I would double a preemptive 3H) xx xxx KQJx Jxxx (I would double a splinter 3H, for a D lead) QJxxx x QJxxx xx (I would double a fit-jump 3H, not everyone's cup of tea, I know) AQ10x xxx xxx Axx (I would double a transfer 3H, which means 'please partner, let me double 3S') You see, I can have a flat 10 count, and still ask ! >Also, "at the start of a round, you have a duty to find out your opponents' >Basic System ..." (OB 3.1.2) which would be taken to include knowing whether >2D was Multi. AG : and I have a duty to check responses ? And rebids ? >It is well understood even at club level here that "ask and pass" creates >UI - whether the pass is in tempo or not is irrelevant if it follows a >question (or obviously looking at opponents' CC). Pass by North is IMO now >a clear cut LA for North on the hand given and I would be very surprised if >a TD here did not routinely adjust to 3H minus whatever. AG : routinely, yes. But would he be right ? Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 02:05:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UG5NL01286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 02:05:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4UG57t01272 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 02:05:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from fermat.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.37]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f4UG47v23885; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:04:08 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4UG47Q11508; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:04:07 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:04:07 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06195; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:04:07 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA23105; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:04:06 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:04:06 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200105301604.RAA23105@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > a) The EBU's strongest player (Tony Forrester) advocates the "always ask" > policy. (along with Bobby Goldman, Jens Auken with Tommy Sandsmark as > the scribe.) > > b) the editor of the appeals report (Tony Sowter I believe) wrote > "This ruling illustrates the dangerers of individual NCBOs adopting > regulations that are inconsistent with the international view." > > In case it's not obvious, this ruling came from a hand where a player > asked a question, passed and his partner took a call that the opposition > felt was not obvious. (The AC strongly disagreed with this assertion, > finding the chosen call routine and not getting into the issue of logical > alternatives) > Is this esteemed AC suggesting that L16A be reworded? My version says After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. If questions do not constitute UI, presumably "a question," should be removed from the text quoted above. 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 May 31 02:40:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UGeXr03021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 02:40:33 +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 ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4UGeMt03009 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 02:40:23 +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 JAA25334; Wed, 30 May 2001 09:39:17 -0700 Message-Id: <200105301639.JAA25334@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 May 2001 17:04:06 BST." <200105301604.RAA23105@tempest.npl.co.uk> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 09:39:16 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > Is this esteemed AC suggesting that L16A be reworded? > > My version says > > After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a > remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable > hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, > movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose > from among logical alternative actions one that could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information. > > If questions do not constitute UI, presumably "a question," should be > removed from the text quoted above. No, that's black-and-white thinking. Your presumption seems to be that either questions constitute UI or questions do not constitute UI. But that's not true. *Some* questions constitute UI and some do not. It appears to be the opinion of the AC (as well as my own, and many here at BLML) that questions asked about an Alerted call, immediately after the Alert, do not constitute UI; but this opinion doesn't apply to all types of questions in all situations. -- 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 May 31 02:56:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UGu2603640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 02:56:02 +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 f4UGtrt03628 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 02:55:54 +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 JAA25671; Wed, 30 May 2001 09:54:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200105301654.JAA25671@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 May 2001 15:27:23 BST." Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 09:54:56 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes > > >One can argue that it should still be OK for the nonoffender to get a > >bad result due to bad luck. I don't have a problem with that, but > >it's not easy to divine where the line between "bad luck" and "direct > >result of an infraction" should be. However, I submit that if an > >infraction that bars partner results in the offenders getting to an > >excellent spot, when there was no way in practice to get to that spot > >by following the rules, then the harm done to the nonoffender *was* a > >direct result of the infraction (just as when a revoke infraction > >creates a stopper in a suit when there's no way to create a stopper by > >following the rules). If you believe this isn't so, I would like to > >know why. > > At the moment in many many situations bridge is played after an > infraction. What you are suggesting is that the offenders should never > gain therefrom. On the other hand, some things that could occur after an infraction probably can't be considered "bridge". If I have Ax opposite KQxxxx, and the suit breaks 3-2, and I can't run the suit because the opponents create a stopper by revoking, that's not bridge. If I open 2S, and LHO's double would be for takeout according to their system, and LHO instead doubles for penalty because RHO is barred, one can argue that that's not bridge either. > This has two main disadvantages, one it seems near-impossible to me to > enforce, and two, it seems to lose the point of continuing to play. > > Let us take an example: a player leads out of turn. Declarer makes a > choice, and *whatever* he chooses, this might mean the offenders gain. > The reason this is generally considered acceptable [and is to me] is > because the non-offenders gain on balance. > > Now, it would be *very* difficult to always adjust to make sure the > offenders never gain - think of every ruling you do, you would have to > look at every one. Furthermore, I think it would ruin the game for the > offenders. And, because the non-offenders gain on balance, I think this > is an unnecessary change in the Laws. I've been doing a lot of thinking about this matter after all the responses I received. It looks like I'll have to backtrack somewhat about my "unquestionable" principle that nonoffenders can't be harmed as a direct result of an infraction. On the other hand, I think the principle is still valid, if we use it correctly. I've already said that it should be OK for NO's to get a bad result from bad luck (or "rub of the green"), but that it's not OK for offenders to gain directly from an infraction. Of course, in practice, it can be difficult to distinguish which is which, and even if it were easy, it would be too much of a burden on Directors to have to make this determination every time there's an infraction. But what I'm proposing is *not* that we ask Directors to decide, in each case, whether there's damage and whether the damage was caused by the infraction or by bad luck. (I may have shot myself in the foot by suggesting that my principle be elevated to the status of a Commandment.) I'm suggesting, instead, that we add a Law (or binding interpretation) that implements this principle in some narrow, specific cases where it's likely that damage will be the direct result of an infraction rather than just "rub of the green". Those who are still philosophically opposed to the principle should note that (as I've already pointed out) we already have a Law that implements this principle, namely L64C. This Law clearly says that after one certain type of infraction, the offenders are not allowed to gain from the infraction. Plus, I've never heard of this Law being difficult to enforce or creating a situation where there's no point in continuing to play. On the other hand, I believe that the current situation with Law 23 is more difficult. By adding the requirement that the offender "could have known" that damage would result from the infraction, the Laws for dealing with this have a significant element of vagueness. The responses to David's hand that started this thread are evidence of this; we're divided practically down the middle (my guess, I haven't actually counted) and can't agree on what "could have known" really means or how to determine whether the condition holds or not. Hardly the epitome of enforceability. Thus, assuming we can accept the existence of a Law to prevent offenders from gaining from infractions in some circumstances---and I presume everyone here can accept it since no one has been lobbying to wipe Law 64C off the books---I'd like to submit a modification of my earlier proposal that narrows it further, to cases where damage is demonstrably more likely to be caused by the infraction than by luck: If, after one member of a side has been barred from the auction, the partner of the barred player chooses a call such that: (1) that player could have known that the call, if followed by three passes, would result in a contract that would be highly unlikely to be the final contract had the infraction not occurred; and (2) the player could have known that playing in this contract could be advantageous to his side; then the Director is empowered to adjust the score. Note that I used the same phrase "could have known" that I complained about earlier, but I think applying it in this context is easier, and more objective, than trying to determine what someone "could have known" earlier, when the original infraction was committed. Note also that this is what I tried to achieve with my earlier suggestion that hinges on whether a bid is "forcing or infrequently passed" (adding "conventional" was a mistake), but this narrows it down even further. For example, say South deals, and West opens 1NT out of turn. South does not accept the bid; he makes his normal 2S opening. West doubles, barring partner. If a double of a 2S opening would normally be for takeout, and if West has good spades, then (1) would apply [West can tell that 2Sx is unlikely to be the final contract under normal circumstances] and so would (2) [because of West's good trumps], so we'd be able to adjust if the result is damaging to N-S. However, there's no adjustment if West has something like xx AQx AKJx Qxxx, because now the double is rather speculative---(2) doesn't apply. And, of course, we wouldn't adjust if West's double of 2S would normally be penalty---(1) doesn't apply here. On the other hand, if South deals and North opens 1NT out of turn; South is barred, and North tries 3NT. Now (1) doesn't apply, since it is not "highly unlikely" after a 1NT opening that 3NT could be the final contract. So no adjustment under the proposed rule. -- 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 May 31 03:09:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UH9UJ04320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 03:09:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4UH9Mt04309 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 03:09:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from fermat.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.37]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f4UH8Qv01446 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 18:08:27 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4UH8Qv15037 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 18:08:26 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:08:26 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 SAA06315 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 18:08:26 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA23158 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 May 2001 18:08:25 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 18:08:25 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200105301708.SAA23158@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: Adam Beneschan > > Robin Barker wrote: > > > > If questions do not constitute UI, presumably "a question," should be > > removed from the text quoted above. > > No, that's black-and-white thinking. Your presumption seems to be > that either questions constitute UI or questions do not constitute UI. ( Silly me! :-) ) > But that's not true. *Some* questions constitute UI and some do not. > It appears to be the opinion of the AC (as well as my own, and many > here at BLML) that questions asked about an Alerted call, immediately > after the Alert, do not constitute UI; but this opinion doesn't apply > to all types of questions in all situations. Thanks for the clarification. So the first paragraph of L16 (not lettered) should be reworded as: Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and/or plays, from mannerisms of opponents, and from partner's request for an explanation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ immediately after an alerted call. To base a call or play on ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. Can we live with that? 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 May 31 03:21:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UHLE105658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 03:21:14 +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 f4UHL1t05605 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 03:21:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:15:56 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01c0e92c$b59a6040$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <00b001c0e8d4$05f18900$33e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:19:35 -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: "Peter Gill" > Marv French wrote: > >Individual bids should not be questioned, per L20F1, and South > >should have asked for an explanation of the auction (not a serious > >irregularity in this case). If South asks for an explanation of the > >auction every time it isn't understood, as should be done, either > > "as should be done" in North America, but not necessarily elsewhere. And > definitely not in a place where Relay Systems are common. Not understood. Surely 20F1 applies everywhere, if that's what you mean. And surely you don't mean that a player should inquire only when interested in the auction. Ask always if you don't understand, or never ask; do not ask selectively according to your hand. Isn't that a workable principle everywhere? > > >with 0 or 16 HCP, then there would be no question of UI. If South > >inquires selectively, then that certainly is UI if s/he passes after > >getting an answer. What answer would have evoked some other > >action? 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 May 31 04:05:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UI5G117571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:05:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4UI55t17564 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:05:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f4UI4FO20992 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:04:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200105301804.f4UI4FO20992@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:04:15 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200105301708.SAA23158@tempest.npl.co.uk> from "Robin Barker" at May 30, 2001 06:08:25 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] 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 Robin Barker writes: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > > > Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > > If questions do not constitute UI, presumably "a question," should be > > > removed from the text quoted above. > > > > No, that's black-and-white thinking. Your presumption seems to be > > that either questions constitute UI or questions do not constitute UI. > > ( Silly me! :-) ) > > > But that's not true. *Some* questions constitute UI and some do not. > > It appears to be the opinion of the AC (as well as my own, and many > > here at BLML) that questions asked about an Alerted call, immediately > > after the Alert, do not constitute UI; but this opinion doesn't apply > > to all types of questions in all situations. > > Thanks for the clarification. > > So the first paragraph of L16 (not lettered) should be reworded as: > > Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on > information from legal calls and/or plays, from mannerisms of > opponents, and from partner's request for an explanation > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > immediately after an alerted call. To base a call or play on > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. > > Can we live with that? I don't like that wording. I think it's a lot closer to a footnote that says that partner's request for an explanation immediately after an alerted call does not in itself constitute unauthorized information. It's a small but (IMO) important distinction. Leaves the director or AC to rule that a given pair is in fact passing information through their pattern of asking. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 04:12:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UICXR17805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:12:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UICPt17796 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:12:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 30 May 2001 11:06:11 -0700 Message-ID: <003001c0e933$b9748900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200105301639.JAA25334@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:09:48 -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" > > Robin Barker wrote: > > > Is this esteemed AC suggesting that L16A be reworded? > > > > My version says > > > > After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > > information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a > > remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable > > hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, > > movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose > > from among logical alternative actions one that could > > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > > information. > > > > If questions do not constitute UI, presumably "a question," should be > > removed from the text quoted above. > > No, that's black-and-white thinking. Your presumption seems to be > that either questions constitute UI or questions do not constitute UI. > But that's not true. *Some* questions constitute UI and some do not. > It appears to be the opinion of the AC (as well as my own, and many > here at BLML) that questions asked about an Alerted call, immediately > after the Alert, do not constitute UI; but this opinion doesn't apply > to all types of questions in all situations. > Please excuse me for referring to L20F1 previously. I had forgotten that 3H was Alerted. In ACBL-land, a "Please explain" should automatically follow every Alert, to avoid "selective" inquiries. There is no question, just an automatic request. For extremely common Alerted calls that are explained on the cc, the request is unnecessary. The important thing is not to vary your practice according to your hand. With such a policy, there can never be UI. What if the explanation doesn't provide all the information needed? Then that is a violation of the Alert Procedure, which requires that "all relevant disclosure should be given automatically." If damage results, the TD should give redress. S/he may say, "You could have asked," but the reply is "I don't have to ask. Opponents are required to disclose all pertinent information. Further questioning is UI to partner, and I shouldn't be expected to generate unnecessary UI." When it is obvious that the opponent has not complied with disclosure requirements (e.g., by giving the name of a convention instead of its meaning), then of course a clarification request is in order. But do it all the time. It may be that you need to know about "calls available but not made" (L20F1). You can ask about that after requesting a "complete explanation of the auction" (L20F1), since the Alert Procedure does not include this right. Such a request should not be made unnecessarily (e.g., when it could just aa well be asked later), if partner may have a decision to make in the auction. If all this is enforced, there should be a minimum of UI problems. As to this particular case, I have no opinion. I'd like to know if South always inquires about an Alerted call, and I don't know whether North's 3S bid is all that automatic. Don't some players "preempt" opposite a weak two with good defensive values that do not justify a game bid? I do this all the time, raising a weak two and then doubling. As Kaplan wrote, if South's question gives UI that suggests action by North, then passing 3H must be "unreasonable, eccentric, far out" in order to allow the 3S bid. I'm not sure whether this is so. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 04:34:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UIY1q18630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:34:01 +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 f4UIXst18620 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:33:54 +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 LAA28018; Wed, 30 May 2001 11:32:58 -0700 Message-Id: <200105301832.LAA28018@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 May 2001 14:04:15 EDT." <200105301804.f4UI4FO20992@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:32:57 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: > > Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on > > information from legal calls and/or plays, from mannerisms of > > opponents, and from partner's request for an explanation > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > immediately after an alerted call. To base a call or play on > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. > > > > Can we live with that? > > I don't like that wording. I think it's a lot closer to a footnote that > says that partner's request for an explanation immediately after an > alerted call does not in itself constitute unauthorized information. > > It's a small but (IMO) important distinction. Leaves the director or AC > to rule that a given pair is in fact passing information through their > pattern of asking. Right---it's possible that an immediate request for information about an alert could still constitute UI depending on how it's done. It's fine to presume that such a question is *normally* not UI, but it could be UI if the question is conspicuously inconsistent (i.e. partner usually doesn't ask in this particular auction, but he asked this time). My other objection to the wording is that if a question is not UI, that doesn't mean it's AI. Rather, it's NI---i.e. it conveys no [relevant] information. So adding it to the paragraph on what one is authorized to base one's calls on, makes about as much sense as saying "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from partner's sneezes." -- 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 May 31 04:56:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UItpZ19527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:55:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UItct19512 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:55:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 11:50:31 -0700 Message-ID: <003801c0e939$ea149900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010528145949.008532b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010528170558.00b0e180@127.0.0.1> <01052815370400.04904@psa836> <004601c0e895$e088b280$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Lead by "dummy" Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:54:05 -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" > >> David J Grabiner writes > >> > >> >But I agree that the "may" seems to have been left there by mistake. > >> >Declarer is not allowed to waive any other penalty on his own > >> >initiative. > >> > >> That is not really correct. L53A in effect allows declarer to waive a > >> penalty since he can just accept a LOOT, thus waiving the penalty. I > >> know this is not relevant to the current thread, but I do not feel you > >> can deduce that the word "may" is a mistake. > >> > >Players do not have the right to waive a penalty on their own initiative > >(L10A). They can do so only with the TD's blessing. Players can impose a > >penalty for a LOOT (take it back), but when a LOOT is accepted it becomes > >a legal play as if there had been no LOOT, and there is no penalty to > >waive. > > That's just semantics. You are very fond of this word, David. What does it mean? My dictionary doesn't give a meaning that would make sense in this context. > In effect, they have waived a penalty: if that > is acceptable to the Law-makers in that case, you cannot deduce that it > is unacceptable to the law-makers in another case. You assume that accepting a LOOT is equivalent to a waiver, and then argue from that dubious premise. I believe this is known as "begging the question." L10A says that players may not waive a penalty on their own initiative, isn't that plain? Anyway, I agree with DWS (for different reasons) that L24's provisions are equivalent to those of L53A. The question is whether "may" implies an alternative penalty (opening lead penalty for the offender's partner, as in the old Laws), or an alternative "pseudo waiver." Did the lawmakers drop this alternative for the sake of simplicity, or was it dropped inadvertently? It is difficult to imagine a declarer's not imposing a penalty (for a friend?). Logic says that the declarer should either have a choice of penalties, or no choice. If the alternative penalty option was deliberately deleted, the "may" should have been deleted with it. As it is, however, L24 accords with the DWS interpretation 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 Thu May 31 04:56:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UIuLs19569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:56:21 +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 f4UIuEt19561 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:56:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-157-253.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.157.253]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4UItHn22449 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 20:55:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B14C47E.C7448E40@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:59:26 +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] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/More faultydirecting) References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 05:42 AM 5/28/01, Herman wrote: > > >Brambledown wrote: > > > > > > On the contrary, I do not believe that the claim is irrational, merely > > > careless to the point of stupidity. I do not allow it to be > > 'corrected' and > > > (absent L71) he gets 8 tricks. > > > >careless to the point of stupidity or irrational, what's the > >difference. > > Isn't that what we've been debating for a couple of years now? > > "Careless to the point of stupidity" is careless. "Irrational" is > irrational. The footnote to L69-71 requires us to distinguish between > the careless and the irrational. If there's no difference, neither the > footnote nor any of the discussion we've had about it here means > anything at all. > Sorry Eric, but that is not the point at all. The footnote talks about the line of play being irrational or careless. I was attributing to Chas that he considered the claiming to be irrational, which he corrected to stupid. I agree with his correction, but I don't believe that changes in any way the ruling on the line itself. The point Chas, and others, seems to be making, is that by claiming "stupidly", the player indicates he would also play "stupidly", thereby rendering lines that would be classed as "irrational", now normal. I dispute that theory. Or rather, I agree with the basic principle, as long as it is applied to the "same error". A player who claims stating that he has a top spade will also play it for a top spade, and lose it when that turns out to be false. But the error that is being considered here is, IMO, not a "stupid" claim but a "hasty" one. That is not the same. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 06:18:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UKHm123268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 06:17:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UKHet23262 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 06:17:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UDSIN06653 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 May 2001 13:28:18 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:20:54 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200105301604.RAA23105@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200105301604.RAA23105@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01053013281802.06634@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 30 May 2001, Robin Barker wrote: > Is this esteemed AC suggesting that L16A be reworded? > > My version says > > After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a > remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable > hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, > movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose > from among logical alternative actions one that could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information. > > If questions do not constitute UI, presumably "a question," should be > removed from the text quoted above. A question must permit the transmission UI; otherwise we have the situation of East opening 1NT, and South asking "What is the range?" and then passing. However, the AC can rule that a question in certain situations does not transmit information to partner, unauthorized or otherwise. A guideline might be that when a player could reasonably be expected to need to ask a question in order to understand the bidding, he may ask. If the information is something that the player should already know (opponents' NT range), then a question could transmit UI. -- 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 May 31 06:33:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UKWtH23962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 06:32:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UKWkt23950 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 06:32:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UDhOw06658 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 May 2001 13:43:24 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:32:02 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.6.32.20010530140752.0085a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010530140752.0085a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01053013432403.06634@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 30 May 2001, alain gottcheiner wrote: > At 12:53 29/05/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >One can argue that it should still be OK for the nonoffender to get a > >bad result due to bad luck. I don't have a problem with that, but > >it's not easy to divine where the line between "bad luck" and "direct > >result of an infraction" should be. > > AG : it can be both. Say West let fall an King, open-faced, during the > bidding. NS end in 3NT, and as it happens, the (forced) lead of the King is > the best one for EW. The damage to NS is direct consequence of the > infraction, ie all other things being equal, it would not have happened > absent the infraction, and the causality is clearly traceable. And it's bad > luck that the Laws forced the bad result (eg if NS had not called the TD > for any reason, they would have been better off). However, if the TD were > to change the result because of that, he would be going seriously against > both letter and spirit of L12B. This is a direct result not of the infraction but of the *penalty* for the infraction. The "could have known" rule applies to such cases, and thus no adjustment is in order here. (In this case, "could have known" is impossible; if West had known that the king was the best lead, he would have led it without the infraction.) A gain as a direct result of an infraction results in an adjustment even if the situation is not a "could have known" one. For example, suppose East revokes on the opening club lead in 3NT because his stiff C2 is mixed in with his spades. South counts out the hand based on East's club void, loses a proven finesse to West, and goes down two in a contract he could have made. The one-trick penalty is inadequate here because the defenders gained two tricks, and even though East could not have known that he would gain two tricks by revoking (as he could in the usual example of turning Jxx into a stopper with a revoke), we still adjust to 3NT making. -- 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 May 31 06:44:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UKhpj24495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 06:43:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4UKhdt24481 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 06:43:40 +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 QAA27069 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA17889 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:42:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200105302042.QAA17889@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] maths and 'could have known', was : double out of turn Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > - if the average expectancy of the player's score is higher after the > forced pass than without the infraction, > then ... This seems to be a good definition of "damage the non-offending side" as used in L23 (and similarly in L72B1). It does change the emphasis a little, from "damage to the NOS" to "benefit to the OS," but the two come to pretty much the same thing in the end. I don't think we need a Laws text change, but something like the above could well be part of the CoP or its "approved jurisprudence." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 07:03:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UKups25087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 06:56:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4UKuIt25073 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 06:56:19 +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 QAA27657 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:55:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA17967 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:55:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200105302055.QAA17967@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > My view is unshaken: I have more faith in an answer to a hypothetical > question when it is given in front of the other players. It is not > unheard-of, for example, for a player to say "I might have passed" and > his partner to say "How could you: it's forcing!" [...] > Hypothetical questions do have a use, but their use is considerably > diminished if they are made at the wrong time [during the hand] and in > the wrong place [away from the other players]. We may be coming near agreement. I don't object to hypothetical questions if the purpose is to discover facts about the players' bidding system or to help with necessary hand analysis. For bidding methods, at least two of the players (not to mention their convention cards and system notes, if any) will have something useful to say, and of course for hand analysis it is always necessary to consult. As David says, life will be very easy if the players all agree on what would have happened absent an infraction. By necessity, these sorts of questions will be asked after the hand is over, not while the players still need to focus on the immediate play, so there is little objection on those grounds. In contrast, hypothetical questions involving a single player's internal mental processes are quite a different matter. And so are questions asked while the hand is still in play. (Or asked during play of a subsequent hand, for that matter.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 07:27:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ULR4825215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 07:27:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4ULQvt25211 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 07:26:58 +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 RAA02439 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:26:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA18125 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:26:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:26:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200105302126.RAA18125@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] revokes and claims Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "ton kooijman" > The discussion about a revoke included in a claim in BLML has resulted = > in a proposal from my side to the deciding group in the Dutch BB not to = > treat this as established revoke anymore. At first I had some trouble following Ton's message, but I think I have it figured out now. There are several separate issues. Let us see if I have understood properly. I think the above refers to a claim where the claim statement includes a revoke. If so, I believe L44C and L64B3 apply, as I've said in other threads. Apparently many people believe otherwise, so clarification is valuable. > This leaves a problem we discovered before. Law 63A3 tells us that the = > opponents get a revoke established when they acquiesce. But then 63A3 = > gives another definition than 69A. By saying or otherwise admitting so = > (63A3) oppposite making a call on the next board (69A). This, I think, refers to the case we have often discussed: one side revokes, and the other side claims before the revoke is established. If the OS acquiesces to the claim, the revoke is established (and at least we know how to rule that case!). If the OS does not acquiesce, one of the LC interpretations tells us how to rule: the revoke is not established, but we rule doubtful points -- at least any affected by the revoke -- against the revokers, not against the claimer. The two possible rulings are clear enough, I suppose, but there is the key question of when the revoke becomes established by the acquiescence. Is it by the initial acceptance of the claim (even if acquiescence is later withdrawn), as perhaps implied by L63A3? Or by failure to raise objection before making a call on the next board or the end of the round, per L69A? Or up until the end of the correction period (L69B)? > I prefer following 69A, which means that we forget 63A3 as = > far as the acquiescing side is involved. This is certainly reasonable, although no doubt people can disagree. I think there needs to be official guidance one way or another and a clear statement in the next Laws. > But I have another idea for the = > new laws. Such a revoke should go to L64B, no penalty assessed. Hmmm... so if the opponents revoke, and I play the hand out (or at least play one more trick), I get some penalty tricks, but if I claim immediately, I don't get them? I hate to see such a distinction between claiming and playing on, but I confess I don't have any better solution to offer. This is the position we have now, after all. > the claiming side based its claim on the revoke and then it seems better = > to let the TD use an equity approach if the revoke gets discovered. Or = > the claimer knew about the revoke in which case this claim attack should = > not be rewarded. The rights of the revoking side should not be = > restricted by the claim, which they are if the time limit gets less than = > without the claim.=20 You have identified the problem, all right. We want to give the revoker his full and fair opportunity to correct the revoke, but on the other hand, we don't want to penalize an innocent claimer. In any case, we definitely need a new law that starts something like "If a player claims after an opponent has revoked, but the revoke is not yet established, ..." At the very least, claimer should get the benefit of the penalty card that will result if the revoke is corrected (and the related UI restrictions), but it would be a lot better if we could have a fixed penalty. But I don't see how to arrange it. I am afraid the only solution will be to tell players, "If you think the opponents have revoked, don't claim. Play another trick." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 07:35:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4ULZCW25230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 07:35:13 +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-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 f4ULZ6t25226 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 07:35:06 +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 f4ULY9V50415 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010530170226.00b03780@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, 30 May 2001 17:34:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/More faultydirecting) In-Reply-To: <3B14C47E.C7448E40@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:59 AM 5/30/01, Herman wrote: >Sorry Eric, but that is not the point at all. >The footnote talks about the line of play being irrational >or careless. > >I was attributing to Chas that he considered the claiming to >be irrational, which he corrected to stupid. I agree with >his correction, but I don't believe that changes in any way >the ruling on the line itself. Which is where I wandered in, perhaps from another thread, to make the point that when one corrects one's opinion of a potential line subsequent to a claim from irrational to stupid, the ruling on the line must be reassessed, and is likely to change; at any rate, it matters. But Herman is quite right that that is entirely peripheral to his discussion with Chas. >The point Chas, and others, seems to be making, is that by >claiming "stupidly", the player indicates he would also play >"stupidly", thereby rendering lines that would be classed as >"irrational", now normal. >I dispute that theory. > >Or rather, I agree with the basic principle, as long as it >is applied to the "same error". A player who claims stating >that he has a top spade will also play it for a top spade, >and lose it when that turns out to be false. But the error >that is being considered here is, IMO, not a "stupid" claim >but a "hasty" one. That is not the same. Here I instinctively side with Herman on empirical grounds. There's intuitive appeal to the notion that someone who makes a careless claim has demonstrated themself to be more prone to carelessness in general than someone who has claimed carefully (or not at all), but in 40 years of casual observation I have seen no such correlation. If anything, quite the reverse. It's usually the good declarers and defenders who make sloppy claims, often overlooking positions that they would easily have found had they played on. Poorer players, when they do claim, do so painstakingly and carefully (often laying down their cards one at a time lest someone think that they might not have played those thought-to-be-all-good suits from the top down just in case); when they are wrong in their claims, they take their lumps easily knowing full well that they'd have done no better had they played on. I fully agree with Herman that the vast majority of careless claims are just that, careless claims, not statements of what, in an alternative universe where the player hadn't claimed, would have been careless play. I may disagree with Herman as to whether this should make a difference in the way we adjudicate claims, but that, too, is entirely peripheral to his discussion with Chas. 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 May 31 08:15:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UMF3M27705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 08:15:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4UMEht27640 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 08:14:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-65-30.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.65.30]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4UMDd103365 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 23:13:39 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000b01c0e955$d6911c20$1e417bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200105301832.LAA28018@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 23:12:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > My other objection to the wording is that > if a question is not UI, that doesn't mean > it's AI. Rather, it's NI---i.e. it conveys no > [relevant] information. So adding it to the > paragraph on what one is authorized to > base one's calls on, makes about as much > sense as saying "Players are authorized to > base their calls and plays on information > from partner's sneezes." > +=+ This discussion has produced some confused thinking. The fact that partner asks a question is never something on which a player may base a call or a play. If a player asks a question and his partner draws a conclusion from the fact that the player asked a question and bases his subsequent action upon it, this is always a use of UI and a violation of law. The laws permit the question to be asked at the appropriate time. They do not allow that, the question being asked, partner may then base his action upon the fact that it was asked. If a Director or an AC concludes as a matter of bridge judgement that the evidence sustains the case that the partner has allowed his action to be influenced by the fact that the question was asked, the action is judged to be a use of UI. In this type of case we are not concerned with the content of the question but with what may be learnt from the fact that a question was asked. In the example that started the thread there is a simple matter for the Director to judge: did the fact that partner asked the question prompt the bid of Three Spades, or was it an evident bid? ~ 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 May 31 09:30:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4UNRN020566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:27:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe26.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4UNR0t20501 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:27:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:25:59 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.54.104.227] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] explaining L64A to a hurting soul Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:12:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2001 23:25:59.0196 (UTC) FILETIME=[E22A45C0:01C0E95F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A request for help! Today at T9 a player overruffed, winning the trick and then led the revoke suit at T10. His side won T13. It is likely the trouble is caused by the circumstance that declarer was in slam with hope only for 10 or 11 tricks and the revoke penalty brought the total to 12- so he is unhappy with letting through an unmakeable slam. After explaining the revoke penalty to him he is convinced that it is a one trick transfer. His reasoning being that his side won only one trick after the revoke. After several attempts to explain things I resorted to explaining that the revoke card occurred before the trick was won. This did not fly. I should like to help him understand and set his mind to rest that he was fairly treated and not unfairly treated. Are there any suggestions as to how to help this gentleman of about 70 years the next time I see him? Thanks 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 Thu May 31 11:31:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4V1N3629409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 11:23:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4V1Mut29405 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 11:22:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-93-10.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.93.10]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4V1Lo124809; Thu, 31 May 2001 02:21:51 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000901c0e970$20df7be0$0a5d063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] explaining L64A to a hurting soul Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 02:21:23 +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: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 11:12 PM Subject: [BLML] explaining L64A to a hurting soul > A request for help! > ------------ \x/ ------------ > Are there any suggestions as to how to > help this gentleman of about 70 years > the next time I see him? > > Thanks > Roger Pewick > +=+ I really do not think it can be explained more simply than in the words of Law 64A. Perhaps if someone were to show him what it actually says? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 12:02:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4V1sMU03055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 11:54:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4V1sGt03019 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 11:54:16 +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 155Hff-0004Ki-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 May 2001 02:54:45 +0100 Message-ID: <6LXACvA0bQF7Ewby@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:43:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <3.0.32.20010529191643.006bbbf8@pop3.iag.net> <200105301408.f4UE8Q311820@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <200105301408.f4UE8Q311820@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson writes >1. That may be your experience. It isn't mine. Nor I suspect any North >American player. THis isn't a common auction. I'd ask and would >expect the vast majority (upwards of 90% I suspect) of the players I >know to ask. There is one thing that intrigues me. I have read before that players ask questions in the ACBL whenever a call is alerted. Is this true at all levels of the game? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 12:34:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4V2Qaf07026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 12:26:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4V2QTt06987 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 12:26:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4V2MWW12010; Wed, 30 May 2001 22:22:33 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <6LXACvA0bQF7Ewby@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.32.20010529191643.006bbbf8@pop3.iag.net> <200105301408.f4UE8Q311820@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <6LXACvA0bQF7Ewby@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:21:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Cc: David Stevenson Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson asks: > There is one thing that intrigues me. I have read before that players >ask questions in the ACBL whenever a call is alerted. Is this true at >all levels of the game? It's certainly true at the club level here. There are one or two A players here who occassionally don't ask, depending on what system we're playing, and there are a couple who have sufficiently good memories to remember the explanation I gave on the last board for the alert I just gave on this one, but in general, most people automatically ask at every alert. 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/AwUBOxWrU72UW3au93vOEQKeLQCeKQ+NM72zbP74bxDZgdIfFytqASkAoJbp S+wZSV06PS14WalwPk1AfdjY =l6Vu -----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 May 31 14:50:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4V4ffb25721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 14:41:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4V4fXt25682 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 14:41:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt9n4.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.166.228]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA09833 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 00:40:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <045101c0e98b$f8a717c0$3ba6aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: References: <3.0.32.20010529191643.006bbbf8@pop3.iag.net> <200105301408.f4UE8Q311820@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <6LXACvA0bQF7Ewby@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 23:41:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS writes: > Ron Johnson writes > > >1. That may be your experience. It isn't mine. Nor I suspect any North > >American player. THis isn't a common auction. I'd ask and would > >expect the vast majority (upwards of 90% I suspect) of the players I > >know to ask. > > There is one thing that intrigues me. I have read before that players > ask questions in the ACBL whenever a call is alerted. Is this true at > all levels of the game? > My experience with our alerts (other than delayed alerts and announcements) in the ACBL is, I think, along these lines: 45-50% Ask before calling (and maybe look at CC too) 15% Figure it out from the CC before calling, but no questions 10% Remember or assume (correctly) what it means (impossible to be sure) 10% Ask later during auction (often it is opp's partner) 10% Ask after the auction 5-10% Never ask or incorrectly assume (I think) --------------- 100% (I hope) In stronger national events, the number who ask, figure it out from the CC, or correctly remember or assume before calling may be 90%. Actual questions immediately after very surprising alerts that cannot be deciphered from the CC may indeed occur around 90 or 95% of the time. If it is early in the auction, the people who do not ask in such situations in the ACBL generally have bad hands, unfortunately. I wonder if anyone keeps track of these kinds of things? I welcome other ACBLer's input. 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 Thu May 31 16:14:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4V68SL16903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 16:08:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4V68Mt16875 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 16:08:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 23:03:15 -0700 Message-ID: <00dc01c0e997$b0f73b60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200105301832.LAA28018@mailhub.irvine.com> <000b01c0e955$d6911c20$1e417bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 23:00:38 -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: "Grattan Endicott" > The laws permit the question to be > asked at the appropriate time. They do not > allow that, the question being asked, partner > may then base his action upon the fact that > it was asked. If a Director or an AC concludes > as a matter of bridge judgement that the > evidence sustains the case that the partner > has allowed his action to be influenced by the > fact that the question was asked, the action > is judged to be a use of UI. In this type of > case we are not concerned with the content > of the question but with what may be learnt > from the fact that a question was asked. If an Alerted call is always questioned, there is no UI. It's too bad players don't realize that, and a shame that some governing authorities forbid questioning an Alerted call when there is no "need to know." > In the example that started the thread > there is a simple matter for the Director to > judge: did the fact that partner asked the > question prompt the bid of Three Spades, > or was it an evident bid? Would it not be better to say, "or was passing not a logical alternative?"? I'm not sure that an "evident" bid is one with no LA. 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 May 31 16:56:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4V6owm19244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 16:50:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4V6oqt19240 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 16:50:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-37-114.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.37.114]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4V6kO111882; Thu, 31 May 2001 07:46:24 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002101c0e99d$784fb200$72257bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Rik Terveen" , "BLML" References: <003501c0e8db$41f60d20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 07:46:02 +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 To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 8:36 AM Subject: Fw: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > > At 06:38 PM 5/29/01 -0800, you wrote: > > > >On 5/29/01 10:16 AM, "Fearghal O'Boyle" wrote: > > > > > > > >> Pairs, Game All > > > >> All 4 players are internationals - but > > > >> not used to meeting one another. > > > >> E/W play a Strong Club with some > > > >> twists of their own. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> West North East South > > > >> 2D(A) P 3H(A) P > > > >> P 3S P 4S > > > >> P P Dbl All Pass > > > >> > > > >> West alerted the 3H bid. > > > >> South asked and was told (pre-emptive > > > >> raise in either major). > > > >> South Passed in tempo (agreed by all). > > > >> > > > >> North bid 3S holding: > > > >> S. K98543 H. 6 D. K76 C. Q94 > > > >> South had a balanced 16 HCP. > > > >> > > > >> When 4SX made 10 easy tricks, E/W > > > >> call the TD because they are not happy > > > with > > > >> the 3S bid after South's question. > > > >> > > > >> How do you rule? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Best regards, > > > >> Fearghal. > > > >> > > > >I see no reason do anything here ------------- \X/ .................. +=+ It is, perhaps brave to reach any conclusion on the meagre information Fearghal has given. The Director will have enquired further than this, and we should perhaps be told (a) what North had to say about his view of his hand, (b) what other options South had systemically, if any, rather than Pass on a balanced hand of 16HCP, and (c) if his methods gave him alternatives, what judgemental reasons had caused him to select the Pass. ~ 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 May 31 20:28:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VALD119446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 20:21:13 +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 f4VAL5t19442 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 20:21:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.81]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4VAK7c18152 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 12:20:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B160EAF.CF45F23E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:28:15 +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] revokes and claims References: <200105302126.RAA18125@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I had replied privately to Ton on certain issues from his post, and I must therefor repeat some things : Steve Willner wrote: > > > > This leaves a problem we discovered before. Law 63A3 tells us that the = > > opponents get a revoke established when they acquiesce. But then 63A3 = > > gives another definition than 69A. By saying or otherwise admitting so = > > (63A3) oppposite making a call on the next board (69A). > > This, I think, refers to the case we have often discussed: one side > revokes, and the other side claims before the revoke is established. > If the OS acquiesces to the claim, the revoke is established (and at > least we know how to rule that case!). If the OS does not acquiesce, > one of the LC interpretations tells us how to rule: the revoke is not > established, but we rule doubtful points -- at least any affected by > the revoke -- against the revokers, not against the claimer. > > The two possible rulings are clear enough, I suppose, but there is the > key question of when the revoke becomes established by the > acquiescence. Is it by the initial acceptance of the claim (even if > acquiescence is later withdrawn), as perhaps implied by L63A3? Or by > failure to raise objection before making a call on the next board or > the end of the round, per L69A? Or up until the end of the correction > period (L69B)? > > > I prefer following 69A, which means that we forget 63A3 as = > > far as the acquiescing side is involved. > > This is certainly reasonable, although no doubt people can disagree. I > think there needs to be official guidance one way or another and a clear > statement in the next Laws. > I also think this is clear. It does indeed mean that L63A3 is useless, apart for one thing : whether it is important for the actual ruling or not, there must be SOME time after which a revoke is established, mustn't there ? > > But I have another idea for the = > > new laws. Such a revoke should go to L64B, no penalty assessed. > > Hmmm... so if the opponents revoke, and I play the hand out (or at > least play one more trick), I get some penalty tricks, but if I claim > immediately, I don't get them? I hate to see such a distinction > between claiming and playing on, but I confess I don't have any better > solution to offer. This is the position we have now, after all. > My objection to this idea is that it becomes terribly artificial. Say everything is discovered and the TD is called. He shall then have to do the following : - play out the hand, with the revoke in it, and adjudicate the claim; - not apply any penalty; and - play out the hand once more, to see for L64C. In the current system (if our analysis is correct), the TD must only - correct the revoke; and - play out the hand and adjudicate the claim with one complication : a penalty card. In essence, both rulings are nearly the same (what would have happened), but the claimer has 2 pieces of benefit under the current system : he gets the benefit of the doubt in the claim, rather than equity under L64C, and there is the penalty card. I believe that such benefits are a nice counterbalance to the benefit that revoker gets : his claim is not established. I like the current law and don't see why it should be changed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 22:06:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VC0VH05551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 22:00:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f4VC0Ot05508 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 22:00:25 +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 f4VBxRK22326 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 07:59:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010531073812.00ab4190@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, 31 May 2001 07:59:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <6LXACvA0bQF7Ewby@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <200105301408.f4UE8Q311820@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.32.20010529191643.006bbbf8@pop3.iag.net> <200105301408.f4UE8Q311820@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:43 AM 5/30/01, David wrote: > There is one thing that intrigues me. I have read before that players >ask questions in the ACBL whenever a call is alerted. Is this true at >all levels of the game? Not literally, of course. There are some inexperienced players who seem to believe that it is "correct procedure" to ask about every alert, but not many. But the general attitude towards questions, at all levels, is very different from what it seems to be across the pond. It is accepted, at all levels, that questions are routinely asked when the asker could not otherwise follow the auction, whether or not the answer could have any effect on their next call. This naturally means fewer questions at higher levels, because under the ACBL alert procedure the vast majority of alerts occur in relatively routine situations, but the attitude is similar. UI issues typically arise because of questions asked in a particularly pointed manner, or questions asked by players who, in their opponents' opinion, are supposed to know the answer without asking. Potential UI from questions causes fewer problems than potential UI from explanations offered when there has been no question, which seems to be a common failing among less experienced players, perhaps largely those same ones who believe that every alerted call should be questioned. This is consonant with the ACBL's official position, which is that if you don't know what an opponent's alert signifies you should ask. 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 May 31 22:34:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VCSTs13116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 22:28:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VCSMt13077 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 22:28:23 +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 f4VCROE54743 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 08:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010531080950.00ab6990@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, 31 May 2001 08:27:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] maths and 'could have known', was : double out of turn In-Reply-To: <200105302042.QAA17889@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:42 PM 5/30/01, Steve wrote: > > From: alain gottcheiner > > - if the average expectancy of the player's score is higher after the > > forced pass than without the infraction, > > then ... > >This seems to be a good definition of "damage the non-offending side" >as used in L23 (and similarly in L72B1). It does change the emphasis a >little, from "damage to the NOS" to "benefit to the OS," but the two >come to pretty much the same thing in the end. > >I don't think we need a Laws text change, but something like the above >could well be part of the CoP or its "approved jurisprudence." Let's be careful with our terminology. "Damage [to] the non-offending side" is what we provide redress for when we assign an adjusted score. It has nothing to do with potential or expectancy. It is simply the difference between the actual result and the result that "would" (subject to the application of L12C2) have occurred absent the cause of the deviation (strictly speaking, it is still "damage", albeit obviously not redressable damage, if the cause is other than an infraction of law, in which case there is no OS or NOS, and L12C2 doesn't apply). Alain's position, which is sound, is that potential or expectancy has, however, everything to do with whether, given that a player's action has caused damage, the player "could have known at the time... that [it] would be likely to" do so. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 22:56:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VCoqQ20804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 22:50:52 +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 f4VCokt20800 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 22:50:46 +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 IAA20815 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 08:49:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id IAA25774 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 May 2001 08:49:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:49:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200105311249.IAA25774@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] maths and 'could have known', was : double out of turn X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Let's be careful with our terminology. "Damage [to] the non-offending > side" is what we provide redress for when we assign an adjusted > score. It has nothing to do with potential or expectancy. Sorry, Eric, but I don't think what you say is technically correct. L12 doesn't use "damage," as far as I can see. We do often use the word in your sense, however: "that which is redressed." L23 and L72B1 do use the word "damage." In those contexts, I believe it means what Alain said, being related to expected results. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 22:58:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VCqc320811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 22:52:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VCqWt20807 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 22:52:32 +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 f4VCpZK25663 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 08:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010531083535.00b0f390@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, 31 May 2001 08:51:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] More faulty directing In-Reply-To: <200105302055.QAA17967@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:55 PM 5/30/01, Steve wrote: >I don't object to hypothetical questions if the purpose is to discover >facts about the players' bidding system or to help with necessary hand >analysis. For bidding methods, at least two of the players (not to >mention their convention cards and system notes, if any) will have >something useful to say, and of course for hand analysis it is always >necessary to consult. As David says, life will be very easy if the >players all agree on what would have happened absent an infraction. > >By necessity, these sorts of questions will be asked after the hand is >over, not while the players still need to focus on the immediate play, >so there is little objection on those grounds. > >In contrast, hypothetical questions involving a single player's >internal mental processes are quite a different matter. And so are >questions asked while the hand is still in play. (Or asked during play >of a subsequent hand, for that matter.) Let's not get hung up on semantics. When I or others suggest that we shouldn't ask hypothetical questions, we are talking about questions which are substantively hypothetical, not grammatically hypothetical. When we ask, "What would you have bid if the auction had gone [whatever]?", a sentence diagram would demonstrate that this is a hypothetical question, but it is understood by both the asker and the "askee" (is that a word?) that what we mean is, "What is the expected call in your methods given your hand and [some hypothetical auction]?", which is a question of fact, and a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. In contrast, when the answer is, "Usually X, but I could bid Y or Z if I felt like it," it is not reasonable to then ask, "Well, which would you have bid this time?", which is hypothetical in its substance as well as its language. None of which has anything to do with the substance of Steve's comments, with which I generally agree. 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 May 31 23:07:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VD1vA20842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 23:01:57 +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 f4VD1pt20838 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 23:01:52 +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 JAA21153 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA25831 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:00:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:00:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200105311300.JAA25831@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] explaining L64A to a hurting soul X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Roger Pewick" > I should like to help him understand and set his mind to rest that he > was fairly treated and not unfairly treated. Did you try slowly reading him L64A1? The first clause refers to the revoke trick, which he won. The second clause, after "(penalty)," clearly separates the revoke trick and "one of any subsequent tricks." Or you could just say, "The penalty for a revoke has always been two tricks, hasn't it?" :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 23:07:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VD1mR20836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 23:01:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VD1gt20832 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 23:01:42 +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 f4VD0iE56959 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:00:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010531085913.00b0e9d0@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, 31 May 2001 09:01:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] explaining L64A to a hurting soul In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:12 PM 5/30/01, Roger wrote: >A request for help! > >Today at T9 a player overruffed, winning the trick and then led the >revoke suit at T10. His side won T13. It is likely the trouble is >caused by the circumstance that declarer was in slam with hope only >for 10 or 11 tricks and the revoke penalty brought the total to 12- so >he is unhappy with letting through an unmakeable slam. > >After explaining the revoke penalty to him he is convinced that it is >a one trick transfer. His reasoning being that his side won only one >trick after the revoke. > >After several attempts to explain things I resorted to explaining that >the revoke card occurred before the trick was won. This did not fly. > >I should like to help him understand and set his mind to rest that he >was fairly treated and not unfairly treated. > >Are there any suggestions as to how to help this gentleman of about 70 >years the next time I see him? Show him L64A1 and suggest that he read it for himself. Remind him that he was the offending player, and that he won the revoke trick. If that doesn't do it, I'm out of ideas. 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 May 31 23:13:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VD7JI20849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 23:07:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4VD71t20845 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 23:07:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id EF2FD2A5118; Thu, 31 May 2001 15:05:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 6FE892A446D for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 15:05:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 25376 invoked from network); 31 May 2001 13:05:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 31 May 2001 13:05:51 -0000 Message-ID: <3B164154.1010301@interia.pl> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:04:20 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <200105301408.f4UE8Q311820@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.32.20010529191643.006bbbf8@pop3.iag.net> <200105301408.f4UE8Q311820@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531073812.00ab4190@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: af26acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > This is consonant with the ACBL's official position, which is that if > you don't know what an opponent's alert signifies you should ask. > In the DAY 1/2/3 software Larry Cohen states that there are two main rules concerning alerts: 1? when in doubt - alert 2? when in doubt - ask, don't assume I was wondering if this was Cohen's personal advice or ACBL's official guidelines. Your post says the 2? *is* an official guideline, what about the 1?? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland --------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A-------------- Szukasz pracy? Ponad 600 ofert czeka na Ciebie! http://praca.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 31 23:24:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VDIcH20889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 23:18:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.bmc.uu.se (hermes.bmc.uu.se [130.238.39.159]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4VDIWt20885 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 23:18:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from terveen (terveen.ytbioteknik.uu.se [130.238.44.17]) by hermes.bmc.uu.se (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-62649U1500L1000S0V35) with SMTP id se for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 15:19:01 +0200 Message-ID: <009a01c0e9d4$d9b796c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] NOT asking about an alert Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:23:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f4VDIYt20886 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What is the BLML's opinion on 'Not asking about an alert' Two examples to clarify what I mean: I 1C (A) -Pass-1D (A)-1H Pass (A)-Pass 1C could be a three card suit (5C M, alertable in Sweden) 1D showed a four card or longer heart suit, with longer diamonds possible (Transfer-Walsh) 1H: No questions asked, but normally a bid in opponents suit shows highest (spades in this case) and another. Pass: Denies three hearts (support doubles) Pass: Before passing asking about the last pass and getting the correct explanation. II 1NT-2H(A)-2S-Pass 2NT-Pass-3S(A)-Pass 3NT 2H: DONT (H+S) 2S: No questions 3S: Before bidding 3S, the meaning of 2H was asked, 3S was bid and alerted and after the auction explained as asking for a spade stopper. Naturally, dummy comes down with xxxxx in spades. What are your opinions about these cases? How would you rule if you were called to the table? Greetings, Rik -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/